A Social Science Plan for

South Florida National

Park Service Units

NATIONAL

PARK

SERVICE

DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR

A Social Science Plan

for South Florida

National Park Service Units

Gary E. Machlis

National Park Service

Jean E. McKendry

National Park Service

Michele E. Correia

FAU/FIU Joint Center for

Environmental and Urban Problems

October 1996
Contents

Summary ............................................................................................. i

Chapter 1

Introduction ................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2

Background.................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3

A Research Agenda ..................................................................... 25

Chapter 4

An Action Plan ............................................................................ 41

Appendices

I. Review of NPS Policy and Planning Documents .................. 53

II. Summaries of Existing Social Science Studies ..................... 77

III. Workshop Results .................................................................. 94

IV. A Cooperative Park Studies Unit ......................................... 106

for Social Science

V. South Florida Universities and Colleges ............................. 111

with Social Science Programs

VI. Selected Literature ............................................................... 112
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units i

Summary

Introduction

This report provides a plan for social science research for South

Florida’s National Park Service (NPS) parks and preserve: Big

Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Dry Tortugas

National Park, and Everglades National Park. It was prepared by

the NPS Social Science Program in cooperation with the Florida

Atlantic University/Florida International University Joint Center

for Environmental and Urban Problems. The objectives are to:

1. identify the needs for NPS social science research in South

Florida,

2. propose a research agenda and specific research projects for the

South Florida NPS units (sometimes described as the “South

Florida NPS Group”), and

3. propose a strategy, schedule and budget for implementing the

research.

A Social Science Plan

for South Florida

National Park Service Units
ii

While the plan emphasizes the need for an ecosystem and regional

perspective, and collaboration with NPS partners, it is not a

research plan for the entire South Florida ecosystem restoration

effort. Its scope is research critical to the NPS mission in the

region.

Background

The research needs and priorities for NPS social science in South

Florida are derived from three key sources. The first is a policy

analysis of the NPS mission, the enabling legislation and

management plans for each NPS unit, and the objectives and

priorities of several groups in which the NPS participates as a

partner agency. The second source is a review of the existing

literature. The third source of information is from a series of six

workshops conducted in the region with NPS managers, scientists,

agency partners, local officials, and interested citizens. The results

are used to develop a research agenda.

A Research Agenda

A social science research agenda is proposed that includes

Regional Interdependent Research Projects (IRP’s), Group

Interdependent Research Projects, and Park and Preserve Research

Projects.

Regional Interdependent Research Projects

Many of the social science research needs facing the South Florida

NPS units are interdependent, have regional implications that

extend beyond NPS unit boundaries, and are important to other

stakeholders in South Florida. Four IRP’s are proposed.

South Florida General Population Survey

Critical to the NPS is an accurate understanding of the general

population of South Florida. A general survey of the regional

population is proposed to provide information on:
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units iii

• visitation (for each NPS unit) among South Florida residents,

including expenditure data,

• knowledge and awareness of NPS issues among South Florida

residents, and

• values, attitudes and opinions of South Florida residents

regarding general environmental issues, federal land issues, and

South Florida NPS issues.

South Florida NPS Economic Impact Study

Economic issues are central to key decisions being made regarding

South Florida ecological restoration, management of South Florida

federal lands, and NPS provision of services. An accurate and

comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of South

Florida NPS units is critical. A South Florida NPS economic

impact study is proposed to provide information on:

• traditional costs and benefits (such as income generation, jobs,

lost tax revenues), and

• non-commodity costs and benefits (such as habitat preservation

and water quality).

South Florida Socioeconomic Indicators Project

The ecological restoration and effective ecosystem management of

South Florida NPS resources, and the provision of efficient and

effective visitor services, require a sound and systematic

monitoring effort. A South Florida socioeconomic indicators

project is proposed to:

• select and develop key socioeconomic indicators relevant to

important trends in South Florida,

• collect necessary data on these indicators,

• develop and maintain a GIS database,

• report and display the indicators in a brief annual report, and

• conduct a series of training workshops for managers, planners,

local governments, interest groups and citizens.
iv

South Florida NPS Futures Project

South Florida is undergoing rapid socioeconomic and land use

change. Sound prediction of trends and assessment of likely future

conditions impacting South Florida NPS units is a necessity. A

South Florida NPS Futures Project is proposed to:

• develop realistic future scenarios for South Florida, and

• examine the implications of these scenarios for the

management of South Florida NPS resources.

Group Interdependent Research Projects

Group projects combine a set of research questions and issues of

specialized concern to the South Florida NPS Group. Three such

projects are proposed.

General Visitor Profile

NPS managers in South Florida require accurate understanding of

who their visitors are, what they do, and their expectations and

evaluations of services. A general visitor profile is proposed to

provide:

• basic demographic information on visitors,

• behavioral data on visitors, including visitor expenditure data,

and

• visitor evaluation of services (to meet Government

Performance and Results Act and National Performance

Review requirements, as well as improve visitor services).

NPS Stakeholders Inventory Project

For South Florida, with its complex mix of governments, federal

agencies, Indian tribes, ethnic groups, inholders, industry and

special interest groups, an accurate understanding of stakeholders

is necessary for effective public participation and successful

management and planning. A stakeholders inventory project is

proposed to:
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units v

• develop a comprehensive inventory of all stakeholders in South

Florida NPS management, decision-making and planning,

• survey the stakeholder groups to better understand their

positions, interests and preferences for participation and

communication, and

• develop more effective ways to educate, inform and cooperate

with stakeholder groups.

NPS Neighbors Project

The effective and sustainable management of the NPS South

Florida units requires an effective working relationship with NPS

neighbors — communities, county governments, private

landowners, and other management agencies. A detailed

understanding of socioeconomic and land use change is necessary.

An NPS neighbors project is proposed to provide socioeconomic

and land use trend data focused on the following four subregions:

• Homestead/Florida City/South Dade County,

• the Florida Keys,

• Everglades City, and

• Southwest Florida.

Park and Preserve Research

In addition to regional and group research, each of the four South

Florida NPS units has specific social science research needs. Some

research needs will require specific projects at each unit, including:

• at Big Cypress National Preserve, studies of user groups (e.g.,

hunters and other backcountry users),

• at Biscayne National Park, research on commercial fishery and

proposed changes at Stiltsville,

• at Dry Tortugas National Park, research on anglers/recreational

fishing, and

• at Everglades National Park, research on foreign visitors and

carrying capacity.
vi

An Action Plan

Implementing a social science research program for the South

Florida NPS units will require several specific actions. These

actions can be accomplished in four stages.

Stage 1. Organizing for Social Science

• appoint a social science coordinator for South Florida NPS

group,

• establish a social science Cooperative Park Studies Unit

(CPSU) in South Florida,

• convene a conference on South Florida NPS social science,

• develop a social science research plan for the South Florida

Federal Interest Lands, and

• include social science in the existing South Florida Science

Subgroup, and place a social scientist on that Subgroup.

Stage 2. Building a Research Base

• initiate the South Florida General Population Survey and South

Florida NPS Economic Impact Study,

• initiate the NPS Stakeholders Inventory, and

• initiate critical park and preserve projects.

Stage 3. Diversifying the Research

• expand the social science CPSU to include additional partner

institutions,

• continue coordination and direction by NPS social science

coordinator and the CPSU project leader,

• initiate the South Florida Socioeconomic Indicators Project and

the South Florida NPS Futures Project,

• initiate the South Florida General Visitor Profile and NPS

Neighbors Project, and

• initiate additional park and preserve research projects.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units vii

Stage 4. Completing the Research Program

• complete all of the IRP’s described above,

• initiate remaining projects as most critical park and preserve

research projects are completed,

• complete development of social science CPSU and diversify

research, training and graduate education program for NPS,

• carefully evaluate the South Florida NPS social science

program, and

• extend the South Florida NPS social science program (based on

a favorable review).

Estimated Budget

The estimated budget to complete all four stages of the Action Plan

is $546,000 ($521,000 from the South Florida NPS Group and

$25,000 from the Washington Office). NPS partners would provide

offsetting contributions.

Appendices

Six appendices are included:

I) a detailed review of NPS policy and planning documents,

II) a summary of existing social science studies,

III) results of the public workshops,

IV) a description of the proposed social science CPSU,

V) a list of South Florida universities and colleges with social

science degree programs, and

VI) selected references.

For more information, contact:

Dr. Gary E. Machlis

Visiting Chief Social Scientist

National Park Service

Washington, D.C.

Phone: (202) 208-5391

Email: gmachlis@uidaho.edu
viii
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 1

The purpose of this report is to provide a plan for social science

research for South Florida’s National Park Service parks and

preserve. The National Park Service (NPS) manages four units in

South Florida: Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National

Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, and Everglades National Park.

The parks and preserve are critical components of South Florida’s

ecosystem, economy, culture and quality of life. The parks and

preserve are also key units in the National Park System, with

national and global significance.

Effective management of these areas requires an understanding of

the relationship between people — visitors, local communities,

employees, Indian tribes, other government agencies, interest

groups, citizens — and protected areas. This understanding

requires a sound scientific basis. Hence, social science is a

necessary and important function of the NPS in South Florida. A

plan for social science can identify and prioritize research needs,

Introduction

I
2

increase the usefulness of research results, improve the delivery of

information, and reduce costs.

The objectives of this plan are to:

1. identify the needs for NPS social science research in South

Florida,

2. propose a research agenda and specific research projects for the

South Florida NPS units, and

3. propose a strategy, schedule and budget for implementing the

research.

In this report, “South Florida” includes the lands and waters from

the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee area to the Florida Keys,

following the general boundaries of the South Florida Water

Management District (see Map 1). In this report, the four NPS

units in South Florida are sometimes described as the “South

Florida NPS group.”

Extraordinary Challenges for South Florida and the NPS

This is a critical period in the history of South Florida, and in the

management of Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National

Park, Dry Tortugas National Park and Everglades National Park.

The South Florida region and its people face extraordinary

challenges. These include:

• a human population expected to triple within 50 years,

• intense competition for water supplies among residential,

agricultural and preservation uses,

• cumulative and severe ecological stresses that are the result of

urban growth and agricultural activity, and

• the need for sustainable economic development simultaneous

with restoration of the South Florida ecosystem.

The South Florida NPS group also faces extraordinary challenges:

• an 81% increase in park visitors since 1980, including dramatic

increases at Biscayne and Dry Tortugas National Parks,
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 3

Gulf of

Mexico

Atlantic

Ocean

DRTO

Key West

Miami

Naples Fort Lauderdale

Fort Myers

Lake Okeechobee

EVER

BICY

BISC

SFWMD

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District

BICY

BISC

DRTO

EVER

Biscayne National Park

Big Cypress National Preserve

Dry Tortugas National Park

Everglades National Park

Big Cypress National

Preserve Addition

Everglades National

Park Expansion

N

▲

Map 1: South Florida NPS Group
4

• significant resource impacts, from exotic species to water

quality concerns,

• complex resource management issues, from ORV use to

commercial fishing,

• reorganization of the NPS, and

• limited financial and human resources.

South Florida can be considered a “human ecosystem” — a

complex, bounded ecosystem that includes socioeconomic as well

as biophysical systems. The South Florida NPS units are critical

elements in this human ecosystem. Perhaps nowhere else in the

nation is the long-term future of NPS units and a geographical

region so intertwined. Hydrological flows, weather patterns,

ecological cycles, urban growth, local and regional economies,

government jurisdictions, an agricultural heritage, diverse cultural

values and the presence of the Miccosukee Tribe and the Seminole

Tribe — all link the NPS parks and preserve to the larger region.

Hence, the NPS is a partner in efforts such as the South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and The Governor’s

Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. An effective social

science plan for the NPS can contribute to the scientific research

programs of these partnerships, as well as provide the NPS with

research needed to carry out its own specific mission.

Overview of the Plan

In this introductory chapter, the purpose and scope of the social

science plan are outlined. The social sciences included in the plan

are briefly defined and described.

As stated above, the objective of this plan is to identify the needs

for NPS social science research in South Florida. While the plan

emphasizes the need for an ecosystem and regional perspective,

and collaboration with NPS partners, it is not a research plan for

the entire South Florida ecosystem restoration effort. Its scope is

limited to research critical to the NPS mission in the region.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 5

Chapter 2 provides necessary background for developing a

research agenda of NPS social science in South Florida. Three

sources are examined. The first are policy and planning documents

of the NPS and several regional task forces of which the NPS is a

partner. These reveal a formal mandate and specific responsibilities

for conducting social science in support of NPS management. The

second source is a review of the existing literature. The third

source of information includes a series of public and employee

workshops conducted in the region. These workshops identified

critical social science research questions for the region, the South

Florida NPS group and the individual parks and preserve.

In Chapter 3, a social science research agenda for the South Florida

NPS units is presented. A series of specific research projects is

proposed. There are three levels of research. The first are regional

research projects. These projects deal with the wider human

ecosystem of South Florida, and are necessary to both the NPS and

its regional partners (including local and county governments). The

second are South Florida Group research projects. These projects

are necessary and relevant to all of the NPS units in South Florida,

and for the group as a whole. The third are park and preserve

research projects important to the individual NPS units. For each

project, a description, purpose, estimated cost and schedule are

presented.

In Chapter 4, a comprehensive action plan for accomplishing this

program of research is presented. The plan describes how the work

can be accomplished in four stages: 1) organizing for social

science, 2) building a research base, 3) diversifying the research,

and 4) completing the research program. For each stage, specific

and practical actions are recommended. Also included is a detailed

budget for each stage of the proposed research program.

The report includes several appendices. These present the complete

results of the public workshops, a detailed analysis of NPS policy

and planning documents, summaries of existing social science

studies, and more.
6

The Social Sciences Defined and Described

The social sciences are those disciplines of science that study

humankind in relation to its cultural, social and physical

environment. They are one of the three main divisions of

knowledge, the others being the natural sciences and the

humanities. There is considerable overlap. History, for example,

involves elements of both humanities and social sciences,

geography includes both physical geography (a natural science)

and human geography (a social science).

While formal listings and opinions vary, several disciplines are

commonly considered as social sciences: anthropology (and

closely related ethnography), archeology, economics, geography

(human rather than physical), psychology, political science and

sociology.

The NPS currently has programs in anthropological and historical

archeological research, as well as an established Applied

Ethnography Program. Much work is conducted by these programs

in support of NPS cultural resource management, and in response

to legal requirements such as the National Historic Preservation

Act (1966, amended 1992) and the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (1990). The above programs are

essential to the NPS; however, their research agenda and

organization are beyond the scope of this plan.

Hence, this plan for social science in South Florida NPS units

focuses on the following social sciences: economics, geography,

psychology, political science and sociology. While these

disciplines interact, each focuses upon certain units of study and

driving forces important to understanding human behavior. Each

has usefulness to NPS managers in South Florida.

Economics (both macro- and micro-economics) treats markets,

industries and economies as key units of study; the driving force of

change is economic value broadly defined. Economics can aid NPS

managers through studies of park economic impacts, the costs and
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 7

benefits of park policies, and the role of parks in the tourism

industry and national economy.

Geography (specifically human geography) treats regions,

landscapes and other spatial units (governmental, ecological and so

forth) as critical. The central concern is the spatial distribution of

people, resources and culture. Geography can aid NPS managers

through studies of tourist travel patterns, regional development,

land use trends and projections, and human impacts upon park

resources, both natural and cultural.

Psychology has the individual as its key unit, and communication

is a central driving force. Psychology can assist NPS managers

through studies of residents’ expectations and visitor experiences,

interpretive media and other forms of park communication.

Political science focuses upon institutions of the state (at many

levels); the central engine of change to many political scientists is

power and its use. Political science can benefit NPS managers

through studies of public participation in land use planning, the

role of local communities and interest groups, and by improving

organizational effectiveness.

Sociology treats social groups, organizations and communities as

key units of study, with human behavior its central concern.

Sociology can aid NPS managers through studies of demographic

trends, cultural values, visitor behavior and public opinion

regarding park policies.

These social sciences also are important partners in

interdisciplinary research. Disciplines such as environmental

economics, conservation biology and human ecology have

emerged as important scientific fields relevant to the NPS.

Interdisciplinary research, such as studies of visitor impacts upon

wildlife or the economic impacts of management policies, requires

the social sciences.

Economics, geography, psychology, political science and sociology

form the core social sciences described and discussed in this plan.
8
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 9

The research needs and priorities for NPS social science in South

Florida are derived from three key sources. The first is a policy

analysis of the NPS mission, the enabling legislation and

management plans for each NPS unit, and the objectives and

priorities of several groups (such as the South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration Task Force) in which the NPS participates as a partner

agency.

The second source of information is a review of existing social

science literature relevant to the four NPS units in the region. The

review was conducted by the Florida Atlantic University/Florida

International University (FAU/FIU) Joint Center for Environmental

and Urban Problems.

The third source is a series of public and NPS employee workshops

held in South Florida during 1995. These workshops provided NPS

managers and partners, as well as interested citizens, with the

opportunity to suggest critical research questions.

Background

II
10

The results of each are discussed below and presented in more

detail in the appendices.

Policy Rationale for NPS Social Science in South Florida

National Mandate and NPS Mission

A viable mandate for the NPS to conduct social science exists; it

emerges from the NPS Organic Act and its mission for the NPS,

management policies of the agency, and the enabling legislation

and formal planning documents of individual park units.

The Organic Act of 1916 states as the NPS mission:

...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic

objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means

as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future

generations (16 U.S.C. sec. 1).

The social sciences are clearly mandated by the NPS mission

statement, as they are necessary tools for both protecting resources

(such as studies of visitor impacts) and providing for enjoyment

(such as studies of visitor experiences).

The NPS Management Policies manual contains specific guidelines

regarding the role of science in fulfilling this mission. The agency

is to collect and use “social, economic and demographic data

relevant to planning and management at each park.” To do so, “a

program of natural and social science research will be

conducted...”

The agency has recently approved a social science plan that calls

for the agency to “conduct and promote state-of-the-art social

science related to the mission of the National Park Service, and

deliver usable knowledge to NPS managers and the public.” This

plan includes a national research agenda organized around several

critical questions, including:

1. Who are national park visitors?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 11

2. What are the impacts of visitor use of park resources?

3. What is the relationship between national parks and their

surrounding communities and region?

4. What is the relationship between national parks and local,

regional and national economies?

5. How can threats to parks be mitigated?

6. How can natural and cultural resource management be

made more effective?

In addition, the Social Science Program Office is to provide park

managers with technical assistance, such as this plan for South

Florida NPS Social Science.

Enabling Legislation

The enabling legislation of the four South Florida NPS units

provides additional rationale for conducting social science. Big

Cypress National Preserve was established in 1974. Its legislation

includes detailed management requirements for regulating human

activities, allowing members of the Miccosukee Tribe and the

Seminole Tribe to continue certain subsistence activities, and

providing Congress with a detailed visitor use report. Biscayne

National Park was established (first as a monument) in 1968. The

legislative history of its establishment and expansion in 1980

includes Congress’ concern with management to maintain the

quality of visitor experiences.

Dry Tortugas National Park was first established as Fort Jefferson

National Monument in 1935 to preserve Fort Jefferson; its mission

was expanded in 1980 and the national park was created in 1992.

Its enabling legislation refers to preserving the values of the park,

providing opportunities for scientific research, and conducting

long-term monitoring. Everglades National Park was authorized in

1934. The authorizing legislation required balancing visitor

“entertainment” with preservation. The park was established in

1947.
12

Management Plans

Units of the National Park System are required to follow a formal

planning process in carrying out their mandates. Primary planning

documents are the Statements for Management and the General

Management Plans (which are replacing the older Master Plans).

Other “implementation” plans — resource management plans,

development concept plans, and so forth — are also required.

These documents provide further rational for social science

activities in the South Florida NPS units.

Seven plans were reviewed for Big Cypress National Preserve.

Many activities (such as hunting) are allowed in Big Cypress

National Preserve that generally do not occur in national parks.

Research is needed in three broad areas: a) balancing preservation

and special uses of the preserve, b) understanding visitors, and c)

regional cooperation. For example, the 1992 Statement for

Management calls for addressing “management concerns at the

preserve related to visitor use,” such as determining hunting and

fishing levels compatible with protection of resources, recreation

activities compatible with the purpose of the preserve, and

monitoring impacts of these activities. The Statement for

Management also includes explicit objectives that require social

science, such as “establish a complete research program on the

impacts of ORV’s,” “conduct a full range visitor survey,” and

“collect basic visitor use statistics.”

Six plans were reviewed for Biscayne National Park. Research is

needed in three broad areas: a) balancing preservation and use, b)

understanding visitors, and c) regional cooperation. For example,

the 1990 Statement for Management directs the NPS to “encourage

and participate in natural and social scientific research” for

monitoring changes in park resources. It calls for an “evaluation of

visitor use and expectations” and efforts to “anticipate, avoid and

resolve conflicts” with other agencies.

Three plans were reviewed for Dry Tortugas National Park.

Research is needed in two broad areas: a) balancing preservation
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 13

and use, and b) employee and organizational concerns related to

isolation. For example, the 1995 Resource Management Plan calls

for a “visitor profile study to determine attitudes and expectations

of park visitors,” followed by a “carrying capacity study to

determine tolerances of visitors and resources to certain use

levels.”

Fifteen separate plans were reviewed for Everglades National Park.

Several of these plans call for social science research. Research is

needed in four broad areas: a) balancing preservation and use, b)

visitor carrying capacity, c) understanding visitors, and d) regional

cooperation. For example, the 1991 Statement for Management

explicitly calls for interdisciplinary research on the effects of

“man-induced environmental conditions.” It also calls for the

“psychological carrying capacity” of the park to be determined,

and that “research should be initiated to evaluate the relationships

between the park and its visitors.”

The two federally recognized tribes in South Florida, the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and the Seminole Tribe of

Florida, have certain rights and privileges in Big Cypress National

Preserve and Everglades National Park. The NPS must accurately

understand how park and preserve management may impact tribal

rights. Hence, the NPS has a distinct responsibility, established by

enabling legislation and formal management plans, to conduct

social science research necessary to accurately understand the

needs of the Tribes and how such needs can be incorporated into

park and preserve management. Such research must be carried out

in cooperation with the Tribes, on a government-to-government

basis, and with sensitivity to tribal culture.

Partnership Mandates

The NPS is an active participant in several national and state

initiatives relevant to South Florida. These efforts provide

additional rationale for NPS social science in the region. Five

reports and plans were examined.
14

In 1993, the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force was

formed to improve the ability of federal agencies to conduct

ecosystem management. The National Park Service is a member.

The working group of this Task Force conducted seven case studies

to learn about ecosystem management efforts around the country,

including but not limited to South Florida.

The report of this Task Force, adopted by participating agencies,

included several recommendations concerning social science. For

example, it calls for regional science planning that should

“incorporate a wide range of natural and social scientists, address

both ecological and socioeconomic issues, and incorporate an

explicit goal of fostering integration among disciplines.” It also

recommends research that would characterize “the present

economic, environmental and social conditions and trends for the

ecosystem.”

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was also

established in 1993 (this Task Force is separate from the

Interagency Ecosystem Management described above). The

National Park Service is a member. This Task Force is assisted by

its Management and Coordination Working Group and four

subgroups. The Science Subgroup (one of the four subgroups)

identified specific science objectives that call for social science,

including the development of an “interdisciplinary science

program,” research on “the tangible and intangible connections

between natural and human systems,” and the ability “to reliably

forecast natural resource, ecological, economic and social

consequences.” Several of its identified research questions require

social science contributions. Examples are:

1. What are the critical feedbacks of the natural system to

urban and agricultural systems and vice versa?

2. How will the natural system and its support functions for

humans be affected by different population levels and land

use configurations?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 15

3. What landscape combinations will allow healthy natural

systems and urban and agricultural systems to coexist?

The Science Subgroup also identified research needs for each of 10

subregions of the South Florida ecosystem. Several deal explicitly

with social science, including determining “alternative scenarios of

future land use,” and conducting “research on the attitudes of the

region’s diverse groups of urban residents, private land owners, and

tourists.”

The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida was

established in 1994. The National Park Service is a non-voting

member. Its purpose is to “make recommendations for achieving a

healthy Everglades ecosystem that can coexist and be mutually

supportive of a sustainable South Florida economy and quality

communities.” Social science is a critical foundation for many of

its recommendations. Several of the commission’s objectives

include the social sciences, such as the development of a

“comprehensive GIS that will provide for a common data pool”

and “monitoring programs needed to support South Florida

restoration efforts.”

A detailed analysis of these policy and planning documents is

presented in Appendix I.

Literature Review

The second source of information used to develop research

priorities for the NPS South Florida units was a literature review

performed by the FAU/FIU Joint Center. It covered the period 1950

to the present; most studies were conducted in the 1980’s and 90’s.

(Summaries of each study are included in Appendix II.)

Over 30 studies were identified. Most of the existing social science

research involves visitor studies, some dealing with general park

visitors, others focusing on special visitor uses. After visitor

studies, the next most common research area is economic impacts

— primarily of special resource uses. Most studies were conducted
16

at the park level; an exception is an economic benefit analysis

currently underway for both the individual parks and the South

Florida NPS Group as a whole.

At Big Cypress National Preserve, several visitor studies have been

conducted, focusing on special user groups. An environmental

assessment was conducted in 1980 that dealt with visitor use and

development. A study of ORV users is underway.

At Biscayne National Park, several visitor studies were conducted

between 1973 and 1993. Some were general, dealing with visitor

demographics and perceptions. Others were specific, focusing on

backcountry users, public awareness and recreational use of coral

reefs. An economic impact assessment was conducted in 1968

prior to the park’s establishment.

At Dry Tortugas National Park, a general visitor survey was

completed in 1996. It provides basic visitor demographics, a

description of recreation activity and visitor perceptions.

At Everglades National Park, several general descriptions of

visitors have been prepared; the most recent in 1989. Special

studies have been made of recreational boaters, personal watercraft

users, bicycle trail use and backcountry users. Economic studies

have focused on fisheries, both recreational and commercial.

Studies of water policy have been conducted. Research funded by

the US Man and the Biosphere program is currently underway.

Table 1 summarizes the available research.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 17

Table 1. Summary of Available Research

Author Date Title

Big Cypress National Preserve

Fogg, G. 1990 A Study of South Florida Recreational Patterns

Jansen, D.K. 1983-1986 Big Cypress Public Use Study

U.S. National Park Service 1980 Environmental Assessment of BCNP Visitor Use and

General Development Plan and ENP, Shark Valley/

Tamiami Development Concept Plan

Duever, M.J. 1979 Resource Inventory and Analysis of Big Cypress

National Preserve

Robinson, S.D. 1971 Tortious Water and Land Use in the Big Cypress

Swamp

Biscayne National Park

Marion, J.L. et al. 1993 Problems and Practices in Backcountry Recreation

Management: A Survey of National Park Service

Managers

Fabbri, P. (editor) 1990 Formulating Polices Using Visitor Perceptions of

Biscayne National Park and Seashore

Snow, R.E. 1989 Recreation Resource Management and Planning

Study for Biscayne National Park

Survey Research Center, 1989 Biscayne National Park Communications

Center for Urban Policy Research, Survey

Georgia State University

Tilmant, J.T. et al. 1977 An Ecological Assessment of Biscayne National

Monument’s Coral Reefs in Relation to Recreational

Use

Menke, C.R. 1968 Economic Study of the Biscayne National

Monument

Everglades National Park

Correia, M.E. 1995 An Economic Benefit Study of Federal Interest

Lands in South Florida (Draft)

Hershman, K.L. 1994 Water for the Everglades: The Evolution of Water

Policy in South Florida

U.S. Man and the Biosphere 1994 Encroachment and Land Use Change in Biosphere

Program Reserve Regions

U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program 1994 Isle au Haut Principles: Ecosystem Management and

the Case of South Florida
18

Hamann, R. 1993 Assessment of Water Rights, Uses, Laws and

Regulations, Everglades National Park

Harwell, M. and J. Long 1992 U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program Human

Dominated Systems Directorate: Workshop on

Ecological Endpoints and Sustainability Goals

Everglades National Park 1991 A Draft Assessment of Recreational Boating and Its

Potential Impact on Resources within the Crocodile

Sanctuary of Everglades National Park

U.S. Department of the Interior 1991 An Assessment of Recreational Boating and its

Potential Impact on Resources within the Crocodile

Sanctuary of Everglades National Park

Stewart, W.P. and M.I. Ivy 1990 A Sociologic Study of Wintertime Backcountry

Users at Everglades National Park

Dolson, D.E. and G.E. Machlis 1989 Visitor Services Project, Everglades National Park

Tilmant, J.T. 1989 A History and Overview of Recent Trends in the

Fisheries of Florida Bay

Snow, S. 1988 A Review of Personal Watercraft and their Potential

Impact on the Natural Resources of Everglades

National Park

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1986 Socio-Economic Analysis of Commercial and

Recreational Fisheries in Everglades National Park:

Final Report

Tilmant, J.T. et al. 1986 An Analysis of the Recreational and Commercial

Estuarine Fisheries Harvest within Everglades

National Park (draft report)

Ross, D.M. 1985 Report on Everglades National Park Visitor Survey

Rogier, C. 1983 The Comprehensive Development Master Plan: A

Study of Environmental Politics

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1978 Socio-Economic Assessment of Fishery Management

in Everglades National Park: Final Report

Schemnitz, S.D. 1972, 1973 The Influence of Vehicles on Florida Everglades

Vegetation

Everglades National Park n.d. Everglades Bike Trail System Study
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 19

Social Science Research Workshops

A series of workshops was conducted to obtain input from the NPS

managers, scientists, agency partners, local officials, and interested

citizens. Six workshops were held throughout the region.

Participants identified critical social science research questions.

The full results of each workshop are included in Appendix III.

A wide range of research questions was proposed. Several

questions were suggested at more than one workshop. The

questions revealed several key research topics, described below.

Population

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

understanding the characteristics, trends, behavior, opinions, and

values of the South Florida general population. Examples include:

1. What is the demographic profile of South Florida’s population, particularly new residents? What are their opinions

and attitudes regarding federal land management in the

region?

2. What role do the NPS units play in South Floridians’

perceptions of their quality of life?

3. How will the cultural diversity of South Florida impact the

NPS units?

Economic Impacts

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

understanding the economic impacts of the South Florida NPS

units. Examples include:

1. What is the economic and social value of the Everglades?

2. What economic data are needed to best manage the addition lands of Big Cypress National Preserve?

3. What are the economic and social impacts of alternative

management strategies for the commercial fisheries in
20

Biscayne National Park?

4. What are the direct and indirect economic impacts of the

NPS units on the South Florida economy?

Socioeconomic Change

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

identifying critical socioeconomic changes in South Florida.

Examples include:

1. What are the implications of economic development in

South Florida for the Everglades ecosystem and quality of

life in the region?

2. What future trends can be expected in visitor needs and

activities?

3. What are the trends in land use surrounding the NPS units?

Visitors and Tourism

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

understanding visitors to NPS units, and the relationship of the

parks and preserve to the regional tourism industry. Examples

include:

1. What kinds of uses are each of the NPS units receiving, and

how are these uses distributed over space and time?

2. What are the impacts of visitors on park and preserve

resources?

3. What are the conflicts among Big Cypress users, and how

best can these conflicts be managed?

4. What are the impacts of the deterioration and loss of natural

resources upon the South Florida tourism industry?

Stakeholders

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

identifying key stakeholders in South Florida, and how the NPS
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 21

should effectively work with these groups. Examples include:

1. What is the relationship between the NPS units and local

communities, including Indian tribes, and how can this

relationship be improved?

2. What are the values held by cultural groups in South

Florida, and how can they be applied to the management of

South Florida NPS units?

3. How can public participation in NPS decision-making be

improved?

The Human Ecosystem

Workshop participants developed research questions that deal with

understanding the relationship between natural and social systems

in South Florida. Examples include:

1. What is the relationship between visitor experiences and

their attitudes toward ecosystem restoration in South

Florida?

2. What are the impacts of current land and natural resource

use trends on the South Florida ecosystem restoration?

3. What are the economic and social costs and benefits of

South Florida ecosystem restoration efforts?

4. How will ecosystem restoration efforts affect visitation to

South Florida NPS units, and the region’s tourism

economy?

Park and Preserve Research Questions

Workshop participants also developed many questions that are

specific to each of the South Florida NPS units. Examples include:

1. What would be the economic and social impacts of closing

the fisheries at Dry Tortugas National Park?
22

2. What are the social and economic impacts of the 1999

deadline for removal of Stiltsville in Biscayne National

Park?

3. How can Everglades National Park better manage and

educate about jet ski use?

4. What are the socioeconomic impacts of mineral rights and

activities at Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades

National Park?

5. What does the local population value about Big Cypress

National Preserve, and what is culturally significant to

them?

6. What technological and demographic trends may affect

recreational boating in Biscayne National Park?

Summary

There is a significant mandate for the NPS in South Florida to

conduct social science research. The mandate emerges from its

agency mission, its national program for social science, the

management plans for the individual South Florida NPS units, and

its partnership activities.

The literature review reveals a modest and fragmented research

literature. Most studies have been focused on visitors and

specialized economic impacts; there is little integration of the

existing studies, and several critical research topics (such as local

communities and their relationships to the NPS units) have not

been researched.

The public and employee workshops developed a significant and

extensive set of social science research questions relevant to the

South Florida NPS units. Key topic areas include population levels,

economic impact, socioeconomic change, visitors and tourism,

stakeholders, and the human ecosystem of South Florida.

There are three critical scales for NPS social science in South
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 23

Florida: 1) research dealing with regional-scale issues that impact

the NPS units and the broader South Florida ecosystem restoration

effort, 2) research that deals with NPS management of the four

units in the South Florida group, and is relevant to all of the units,

and 3) research that deals with management of NPS resources, and

is relevant to the specialized needs and issues at each of the NPS

units. This hierarchical approach guided the preparation of a

formal research agenda for the South Florida NPS units.
24
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 25

A Research Agenda

III

In this chapter, a social science research agenda for the South

Florida NPS units is proposed. It is based on the policy analysis,

literature review and public workshops described in the previous

chapter. It is organized around a series of specific research projects.

For each project, a general description, scope of work, estimated

budget and schedule are provided. The projects are organized

hierarchically, from regional-scale research to park and preserve

studies.

Regional Interdependent Research Projects

While the South Florida NPS units have national and global

significance, their relationship to the South Florida region requires

a specialized understanding and specific research. Many of the

social science research needs facing the South Florida NPS units

are interdependent, have regional implications that extend beyond

NPS unit boundaries, and are important to other stakeholders in

South Florida. Hence, research projects that are interdependent and
26

regional in scope are necessary and appropriate.

Interdependent research projects (IRP’s) have several important

characteristics. They address numerous park management issues,

study more than one research question or problem, use results from

other studies, develop data critical for additional research as well

as management, and can be implemented through research

partnerships with other South Florida governments and agencies.

Interdependent research projects have several benefits:

• they provide a wide range of needed research results in a

relatively short amount of time,

• they save research dollars and public burden by combining

research and data collection efforts to solve numerous

problems,

• they maximize the value, application and usefulness of

research, and

• they allow increased coordination among research partners,

scientists and disciplines.

Four Interdependent Research Projects are proposed.

South Florida General Population Survey

The population of South Florida is growing rapidly, and

experiencing significant shifts in age, ethnic composition, and

economic class. Of critical concern to the NPS is an accurate

understanding of the general population of South Florida. Research

questions suggested during the planning workshops included, for

example:

• What do people (visitors, residents, stakeholders, etc.) expect

from the South Florida NPS units?

• How can the NPS units work more effectively with the South

Florida tourism industry toward a common, positive experience

for the visitor?

• How will cultural diversity in South Florida impact the NPS

units?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 27

• How do the local population and visitors feel about resource

management changes that might restrict recreational uses, e.g.

spear-fishing, lobstering, recreational fishing and jet skis?

A general survey of the regional population (not just visitors to

NPS units) is proposed. It should be stratified to fully represent the

key ethnic and economic groups of the region. The survey should

be designed to provide information on:

• visitation (for each NPS unit) among South Florida residents,

including expenditure data,

• knowledge and awareness of NPS issues among South Florida

residents, and

• values, attitudes and opinions of South Florida residents

regarding general environmental issues, South Florida federal

land issues, and South Florida NPS issues.

The results of this survey are critical to:

• describing current park use among South Florida residents,

• projecting future visitation patterns among South Florida

residents,

• estimating the economic impact of South Florida NPS units,

• improving visitor services, educational outreach efforts and

concession activities in the individual NPS units,

• improving coordination of NPS activities with the South

Florida tourism industry and other recreation agencies (state,

county and local),

• developing more effective public participation and

environmental education techniques, and

• assessing and understanding public support for park policies,

regulations and long-term activities, both for individual NPS

units and for the region (such as South Florida ecosystem

restoration).

The project could be implemented as a research partnership with

other South Florida government agencies and institutions. The
28

research should be conducted by an independent university (public

or private) or a nationally-recognized polling firm. The survey

instrument (the list of questions and possible answers) may need to

be bilingual. It should undergo careful peer-review, as should the

draft report of the results. Analysis should include in-depth

examination of park and preserve users and non-users, specific

demographic categories (age, gender, ethnicity, income and so

forth) and the general South Florida population. Survey results

should be made widely available throughout South Florida upon

completion of the project. The survey should be repeated every 4-5

years.

Approximate Cost: $45,000

Duration: 9 months

South Florida NPS Economic Impact Study

Economic issues are central to the key decisions being made

regarding South Florida ecological restoration, management of

South Florida federal lands, and NPS provision of services.

Research questions suggested during the planning workshops

included, for example:

• What is the economic impact (broadly defined) of the South

Florida NPS units, individually and collectively?

• What are the social and economic impacts of various park

management decisions and alternatives regarding commercial

fisherman using Biscayne National Park?

• What are the local economic impacts of federal land

acquisition in South Florida?

Hence, an accurate and comprehensive assessment of the economic

impact of South Florida NPS units is critical. This assessment

should include not only traditional costs and benefits (such as

income generation, jobs, lost tax revenues and so forth) but noncommodity costs and benefits (such as habitat preservation and

water quality). Such comprehensive economic accounting requires
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 29

state-of-the-art economic analysis, and a blending of neo-classical

economics and newer environmental accounting techniques.

A South Florida NPS economic impact study is proposed. Because

of the importance and complexity of the South Florida economic

system, this study of South Florida NPS units should be a model

for other parks in the National Park System. The study would

develop state-of-the-art economic accounting techniques, and

apply them to the four South Florida NPS units. It would utilize

data from several of the other IRP’s proposed in this plan. Costs

and benefits would be estimated — in dollars, capital

accumulation, wealth creation, jobs, and other economic measures.

Data should be made available at the county level.

The results of the study are critical to:

• understanding the role of NPS units in the South Florida

economy,

• communicating to the public the best available estimates of the

costs and benefits of South Florida NPS units, and

• making sound economic decisions regarding NPS policies and

ecological restoration efforts.

This project could be implemented as a research partnership with

other South Florida government agencies and institutions. Because

the research must be “cutting edge,” the study design should

undergo careful peer review, and a science advisory panel should

provide advice and guidance to the principal investigators. Results

should be publicly presented after significant peer review, and a

public symposium should be held to discuss the results. The

analysis should be updated after 5 years.

Approximate Cost: $65,000

Duration: 18 months

South Florida Socioeconomic Indicators Project

The ecological restoration of South Florida, effective ecosystem

management of South Florida NPS resources, and provision of
30

efficient and effective visitor services all require a sound and

systematic monitoring effort. Research questions suggested during

the planning workshops included, for example:

• What social and economic facts need to be known to best

manage the Big Cypress National Preserve addition lands?

• What are the land use trends surrounding the NPS units at the

watershed and sub-basin scales?

• How does the NPS proactively keep up with sociodemographic

trends in South Florida, particularly in Homestead/Florida City/

South Dade County?

Tracking important socioeconomic trends in South Florida (such as

population growth, land use change and so forth) is a critical

component of a comprehensive and useful monitoring program.

Such monitoring requires that a set of socioeconomic indicators be

developed, collected and tracked over time.

A South Florida socioeconomic indicators project is proposed. The

purpose of this project is to:

• select and develop key socioeconomic indicators relevant to

important trends in South Florida,

• collect necessary data on these indicators, primarily from

existing sources and the other NPS IRP’s,

• develop and maintain a GIS database that spatially displays the

indicator data, for use by NPS managers, scientists involved in

South Florida ecological restoration efforts, and other

government agencies and organizations,

• report and display the indicators in a brief annual report that

presents changes in key indicators and the implications for

South Florida NPS management activities,

• conduct a series of training workshops for managers, planners,

local governments, interest groups and citizens, to assist them

in the use of the socioeconomic indicators.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 31

Such information is critical for:

• understanding contemporary users and communities adjacent to

South Florida NPS units,

• understanding and predicting socioeconomic trends in South

Florida (see Futures Project below), including trends in use of

South Florida NPS units,

• assessing the impact of land use change on NPS resources in

the region,

• assessing the impact of NPS management policies on local

communities and the region,

• periodically updating the South Florida Economic Impact

study, and

• providing managers of the individual South Florida NPS units

with local as well as regional data on critical socioeconomic

trends.

The project could be implemented as a research partnership with

other South Florida governments, universities and agencies. It

should result in a scientific monitoring effort, a sophisticated

database combining regionally available data, and a public report

useful to citizens and decision-makers. The indicators should be

updated (at very little cost) every year.

Approximate Cost: $25,000

Duration: 12 months

South Florida NPS Futures Project

South Florida is undergoing rapid socioeconomic and land use

change. Sound prediction of trends and assessment of likely future

conditions impacting South Florida NPS units is a necessity. The

purpose is to provide managers with information useful to

managing proactively, and to anticipate management needs before

they become critical concerns. Research questions suggested

during the planning workshops included, for example:
32

• What are the impacts likely to be of marine sanctuary

regulations on the NPS units adjacent to the sanctuary?

• What are the potential long-term impacts on the South Florida

NPS units of radical change in Cuba, linked to long-term

trends?

• How will cultural diversity in South Florida impact the South

Florida NPS units (short and long-term)?

A South Florida NPS Futures Project is proposed. The objective of

the project is to develop realistic future scenarios for South Florida,

and examine their implications for management of South Florida

NPS resources. A variety of research techniques should be

employed, using data collected through several of the above IRP’s.

Techniques may include trend projections, modeling, expert

opinion assessments and other methods. It is important that

specific ecosystem restoration futures be explicitly used when

conducting the analysis.

Information from the project will be important for:

• predicting future use of NPS units and resource conflicts

arising from those uses,

• developing proactive management strategies that allow the NPS

to effectively manage resources,

• making effective decisions concerning ecological restoration

efforts,

• prioritizing ecological research and public outreach programs,

to reflect critical future needs, and

• improving the NPS’ ability to work with partners in South

Florida for effective management of South Florida federal

lands.

This project could be implemented as a research partnership with

other South Florida government agencies and institutions.

Involvement of NPS stakeholders, regional educational institutions,

local industry and non-governmental organizations would expand
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 33

the usefulness of the project.

Approximate Cost: $18,000

Duration: 9 months

Group Interdependent Research Projects

Group IRP’s have similar benefits as the regional IRP’s described

above. Unlike the regional research projects, group projects tend to

combine a set of research questions and issues of specialized

concern to the South Florida NPS units. While research

partnerships are possible, these IRP’s are primarily for NPS

concerns at the group level.

General Visitor Profile

The management of visitors and provision of visitor services is a

central obligation of the NPS. In addition to understanding the

general South Florida population, NPS managers in South Florida

require accurate understanding of who their visitors are, what they

do, and their expectations and evaluations of services. Visitors also

have potentially significant impacts upon park resources, and

understanding their expectations and behavior is critical to

establishing effective management alternatives (such as estimates

of carrying capacity) and educational programs. Research

questions suggested during the planning workshops included, for

example:

• What are the impacts (both positive and negative) of agency

regulations on visitors’ experiences?

• Where and how is recreational fishing conducted in Biscayne

National Park?

• How can directions and access to the South Florida NPS units

be improved?

• What is the spatial and temporal distribution of visitors to the

South Florida NPS units?
34

As each of the South Florida NPS units needs an understanding of

their visitors (and the relationship of visitation in one unit to

another), a general visitor profile is proposed. The objective of this

project would be to develop a systematic description of visitors to

each of the South Florida NPS units.

The general visitor profile would include:

• basic demographic information on visitors by park and for the

South Florida NPS group,

• behavioral data on visitors, including visitor expenditure data

(to be used in conjunction with the IRP’s discussed earlier),

and

• visitor evaluation of services (to meet Government

Performance and Results Act and National Performance

Review requirements, as well as improve visitor services).

Several of the South Florida NPS units have recently completed

visitor profiles (Dry Tortugas National Park, for example,

completed a visitor study in 1996). Hence, the first step in

constructing a general visitor profile for the group is to assemble

all available information (see literature review for an inventory)

and prepare a comprehensive report and database. The second step

is to develop and conduct a systematic survey of park visitors to all

four South Florida NPS units, including a core set of questions and

specific questions tailored to each individual unit.

While this project could be implemented in a research partnership

with other government agencies and institutions, it is also possible

for the NPS to conduct the work independently, assuming

coordination with other agencies regarding the methods used and

data collected. The General Visitor Profile should be periodically

repeated to track changes over time.

Approximate Cost: $45,000

Duration: 12 months
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 35

NPS Stakeholders Inventory Project

Ecosystem management of South Florida NPS units, like

ecosystem management elsewhere in the United States, is effective

to the degree that key stakeholders are participants in the process

of decision-making. For South Florida, with its complex mix of

governments, federal agencies, Indian tribes, ethnic groups,

inholders (large and small), industry and special interest groups, an

accurate understanding of stakeholders is a necessary foundation

for effective public participation and successful management and

planning. In addition, the stakeholders for South Florida NPS units

include groups beyond South Florida. While some needed

information is available from regional planning councils and the

Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, a

comprehensive inventory is critical. Research questions suggested

during the research planning workshops included, for example:

• How can the different restoration values of cultural groups in

South Florida be identified and described for the South Florida

NPS units?

• How can public participation in NPS decision-making be

improved?

• How can the NPS inventory the value of interagency and other

partnerships? What other kinds of information do we need to

improve these partnerships?

Hence, a stakeholders inventory project is proposed. The purpose

of this project is to:

• develop a comprehensive inventory of all stakeholders in South

Florida NPS management, decision-making and planning,

• survey the stakeholder groups to better understand their

positions, interests, and preferences for participation and

communication, and

• develop more effective ways to educate, inform and cooperate

with stakeholder groups.
36

The inventory would include developing a contact database useful

for public participation and communication activities. It would

include a survey of stakeholder groups, designed to gain

information about their values, attitudes, and opinions regarding

South Florida NPS issues. The stakeholder inventory should be

updated every 3-4 years.

Approximate Cost: $30,000

Duration: 9 months

NPS Neighbors Project

The effective and sustainable management of the NPS South

Florida units requires an effective working relationship with NPS

neighbors — communities, county governments, private

landowners, and other management agencies. A detailed

understanding of socioeconomic and land use change is necessary.

Research questions suggested during the planning workshops

included, for example:

• What are the land use trends surrounding the NPS units at the

watershed and sub-basin scales?

• How does the NPS proactively cooperate and manage to keep

up with sociodemographic trends in South Florida?

A NPS neighbors project is proposed. The purpose of the project is

similar to the regional South Florida Socioeconomic Indicators

Project proposed earlier (see page 29), but at a more detailed

resolution and focused on four subregions:

• the Homestead/Florida City/South Dade County area,

impacting Biscayne and Everglades National Parks,

• the Florida Keys area, impacting Biscayne, Dry Tortugas and

Everglades National Parks,

• the Everglades City area, impacting Big Cypress National

Preserve and Everglades National Park, and

• the Southwest Florida area, impacting Big Cypress National
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 37

Preserve and Everglades National Park.

The research should be carefully designed to provide

socioeconomic and land use trend data for each of the subregions,

and across the subregions for each park and preserve. NPS

stakeholders should be involved in selecting the socioeconomic

indicators, and the work could be contracted as a specific

component of the broader regional socioeconomic indicators

research.

Approximate Cost: $55,000

Duration: 12 months

Park and Preserve Research

In addition to regional and group research, each of the four South

Florida NPS units has specific social science research needs. Many

of these specific needs can be met through the above IRP’s. For

example, each of the units has a need to better understand local

users and communities — and the proposed stakeholders inventory

project (see above) can assist in providing necessary information.

There are some research needs that will require specific projects at

each unit. These are summarized below in two categories —

special visitor studies and special topics research. Each unit is

discussed separately.

Big Cypress National Preserve

Big Cypress National Preserve has several special visitor research

needs. This is partly a function of its unique status in the region as

a national preserve. Several special populations require attention,

including hunters, ORV users, and other backcountry users.

Currently, research is underway on several of these groups. A

sustained effort to describe each group, document their use of the

preserve and their values, attitudes and opinions, will be extremely

useful to preserve managers. Different methodologies are

appropriate for each group. These projects are appropriate for

skilled graduate students under close supervision. The work should
38

follow and build upon the South Florida NPS stakeholders

inventory described above.

Approximate Cost: $45,000 total for five projects

Duration: 9-12 months

Biscayne National Park

While the regional and group IRP’s will provide much of the

needed information on visitors to Biscayne National Park, a special

research need is to understand the commercial fishery operating

within park boundaries. A descriptive research project focusing on

the fishery is proposed. It would describe the extent of commercial

use (in jobs, boats, take by species, and so forth), the relationship

between the commercial fishery and recreational anglers, and the

impact of park management alternatives upon the commercial

fishery.

One important special research topic requires work at Biscayne

National Park. It deals with the proposed changes at Stiltsville. The

general population survey IRP can provide important information

about Dade County residents and their opinions regarding the

removal. Specific understanding of local residents, inholders, and

the socioeconomic impact of the removal is necessary. Results will

be useful in planning and critical to designing an effective removal

effort. This work should be completed soon, so that results can be

used in preparing for the 1999 deadline.

Approximate Cost: $25,000 total for two projects

Duration: 9-12 months

Dry Tortugas National Park

Dry Tortugas National Park is the most isolated of the South

Florida NPS units. It is experiencing rapid growth in visitation, and

patterns are significantly different from the other units. Hence, the

general visitor profile described above will need to be

complemented by special research. This work should focus on
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 39

anglers in Dry Tortugas National Park, and provide detailed

information on the amount of recreational fishing, the demographic

background of Dry Tortugas National Park anglers, and the

potential social and economic impacts of changing or closing the

fishery.

Dry Tortugas National Park faces a unique situation in that radical

changes in Cuba’s political and economic system may have

significant impact upon park resources, services and visitor

experiences. The regional NPS futures project can address much of

these concerns, yet additional analysis may be required. Such

research (in the form of trend projections, modeling or expert

opinion) should be conducted after the futures project is

completed.

Approximate Cost: $20,000 total for two projects

Duration: 9-12 months

Everglades National Park

For Everglades National Park, many of the visitor research needs

raised in the planning workshops can be dealt with through the

IRP’s described above. One special visitor group requiring

additional attention are foreign visitors. A relatively small research

project, appropriate as a graduate student thesis, is proposed. The

project should include a survey and interviews with foreign

visitors, and focus on describing the demographic background of

Everglades National Park foreign visitors, their expectations and

special needs.

A second project has to do with establishing carrying capacity

estimates for Everglades National Park. Because of the unique mix

of resource impacts and visitor services provided at Everglades

National Park, establishing seasonal or annual carrying capacity

estimates is both critical to park management, and complex and

controversial. A research effort that combines state-of-the-art

techniques (such as the newly developed Visitor Experience and

Resource Preservation, or VERP technique) and interdisciplinary
40

work with Everglades National Park natural scientists is

recommended. The objective would be to create defensible

estimates of visitor carrying capacity, using several alternative

methods. Such research at Everglades National Park could also

serve as a model for the group and the national park system.

Approximate Cost: $18,000 total for two projects

Duration: 9-12 months

To conduct the social science research needed to meet this agenda

requires a significant and sustained effort by the NPS and its

partners. In the next chapter, a specific action plan for

implementing the proposed research is described.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 41

An Action Plan

IV

Implementing a social science research program for the South

Florida NPS units will require several specific actions. These

actions can be accomplished in four stages, described below.

Stage 1. Organizing for Social Science

1. A social science coordinator for the South Florida NPS group

should be appointed from existing staff. Initially, this is a 0.25

FTE assignment. The coordinator’s responsibilities should

include:

• coordinating existing social science activities within the

group, including contracting, technical assistance, peer

review, archiving, training and application of research results,

• serving as NPS representative for external partnership

activities related to social science,

• serving as liaison with the NPS WASO Social Science

Program,
42

• coordinating social science activities with natural and physical science research underway in the parks and preserve, and

• implementing this South Florida social science plan.

Training and assistance from the NPS WASO Social Science

Program should be sought.

2. A social science CPSU should be established in South Florida,

and a 0.5 FTE social scientist from a cooperating university

should be contracted to serve as project leader. Under the new

social science program being developed by the NPS, a system

of “virtual CPSU’s” will be created to serve the needs of NPS

units. Each CPSU will have a host university, partner

universities, a mission statement, four year plan and NPS

managers committee (see Appendix IV for a description). The

mission of the CPSU should include research, technical

assistance and education (including both information transfer

and training).

More specifically, the South Florida social science CPSU should:

• provide research capabilities for conducting the IRP’s and

special projects proposed in this plan,

• offer technical training, short courses and graduate education

in the social sciences for NPS employees in the South Florida

NPS group,

• provide technical assistance to the group on issues related to

social science (such as technical review of EIS and other

documents), and

• develop and maintain an archive of social science research

results, reports and databases for use by NPS managers and

other scientists.

The 0.5 FTE social scientist should:

• coordinate the activities of the social science CPSU,

• serve as liaison between the CPSU institutions and the NPS,

• conduct portions of the IRP’s and special research projects,

and assist in other portions as needed,
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 43

• provide technical assistance and training to the South Florida

parks and preserve, and

• work with natural and physical scientists in conducting

interdisciplinary research needed by the South Florida NPS

group and individual units.

Existing social science cooperative agreements with South Florida

institutions could be integrated into the CPSU. The CPSU host

university and project leader should be selected through open

competitive bidding. A list of South Florida universities and

colleges with social science programs is provided in Appendix V.

Technical assistance and development funds should be sought from

the NPS WASO social science program.

3. A conference on South Florida NPS social science should be

convened. Its purpose should be to:

• review existing and current social science research relevant to

South Florida NPS units,

• explore linkages between social science and the natural and

physical sciences in providing usable knowledge for South

Florida ecosystem restoration activities,

• communicate this plan and its research agenda to potential

NPS partners and other agencies, and

• develop opportunities for cooperation among NPS partners in

conducting the IRP’s.

Participants should include NPS scientists and managers,

representatives of NPS partners, university scientists from South

Florida and interested citizens.

4. The NPS should encourage and participate in development of a

social science research plan for the South Florida Federal

Interest Lands. Many of the NPS South Florida research needs

are closely related to the needs of other federal agencies in the

region (such as the Army Corps of Engineers and National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and integral to the

South Florida ecosystem restoration project. An interagency

plan for conducting needed social science can improve
44

research, provide more useful results, save money and foster

cooperation.

Such an interagency plan could build upon this NPS document, and

involve all relevant federal agencies in South Florida, as well as

organizations and institutions concerned with South Florida

ecosystem restoration.

5. The NPS should recommend that social science be included in

the existing South Florida Science Subgroup, and a social

scientist be placed on that Subgroup. Many of the scientific

issues surrounding ecosystem restoration in South Florida are

interdisciplinary, and close coordination among all the sciences

is necessary. In addition, coordination of data collection, GIS

databases, report writing and technical review requires strong

working relationships among the full complement of scientists

involved in the South Florida ecosystem restoration. For the

NPS social science program to be fully effective and for

ecosystem restoration to succeed, social science must be

treated as integral to the overall scientific activities in South

Florida.

Stage 2. Building a Research Base

1. The South Florida General Population Survey and South Florida

NPS Economic Impact Study should be initiated. Both of these

IRP’s are critical foundations for further NPS social science

research in the region. These projects should be contracted

through the South Florida Social Science CPSU, based on peerreview of thorough research proposals. The projects could be

conducted in cooperation with NPS partners in the South

Florida region.

2. The NPS Stakeholders Inventory should be initiated. This project

is critical to many of the public participation, impact

assessment and decision-making activities of the NPS in South

Florida. The results are also important for dealing with critical

issues at the individual NPS units — particularly at Everglades

National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. The project

should be contracted through the South Florida Social Science
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 45

CPSU, based on peer-review of thorough research proposals.

3. Critical park and preserve projects should be initiated. These

include studies of:

• Stiltsville (Biscayne National Park),

• commercial fishing (Biscayne National Park) and recreational

fishing (Dry Tortugas National Park), and

• hunters and backcountry users (Big Cypress National Preserve).

Stage 3. Diversifying the Research

1. The social science CPSU should be expanded to include

additional partner institutions. As the research program

progresses, additional partners with specialized capabilities

(such as social impact analysis, conflict resolution and

community studies) may need to be included through

cooperative agreements.

2. The NPS social science coordinator (a 0.25 NPS FTE) and the

CPSU project leader (a 0.5 university FTE) should continue to

provide coordination and direction to the research program.

The project leader should initiate activities to increase the

research base of the program, and provide usable knowledge to

NPS managers in the region. Such activities can include:

• student thesis research on relevant topics,

• workshops on research results,

• a quarterly research newsletter,

• training programs for NPS employees, including seasonal

employees,

• seminars for NPS managers and scientists, and

• regular briefings for superintendents of the parks and preserve.

3. The South Florida Socioeconomic Indicators Project and the

South Florida NPS Futures Project should be initiated. These
46

projects build on the IRP’s completed in Stage 1, and require

increased cooperation and coordination with NPS partners. The

projects should be contracted through the South Florida CPSU,

based on peer-review of thorough research proposals.

4. The South Florida General Visitor Profile should be initiated.

This effort will update many of the independent visitor studies

conducted during 1988-96, and replace them with a unified and

detailed survey of visitors to the South Florida NPS units.

Managers at each of the NPS units should be actively involved

in survey design, so that the profile can provide usable

knowledge for individual units as well as the South Florida

NPS group.

5. The NPS Neighbors Project should be initiated . As described

earlier, this project is similar to the broader regional

socioeconomic indicators project, but at a finer scale and

organized around four subregions surrounding the South

Florida NPS units. It could be contracted as part of the regional

project.

6. Additional park and preserve research projects should be

initiated. These projects include (but are not limited to) studies

of:

• international visitors (Everglades National Park), and

• carrying capacity issues (Everglades National Park).

The projects should be contracted through the South Florida

CPSU, based on peer-review of thorough research proposals.

Stage 4. Completing the Research Program

1. All of the IRP’s described above should be completed. These

projects provide the research base for diversifying the kinds of

social science research conducted for the South Florida NPS

units.

2. As the most critical park and preserve research projects are

completed, the remaining projects should be initiated. These

include research related to:
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 47

• backcountry and ORV users (Big Cypress National Preserve),

• long-term impacts of social and political change in Cuba

(Dry Tortugas National Park), and

• additional special projects that emerge as critical.

3. The social science CPSU should complete its development, and

fully diversify its research, training and graduate education

program for the NPS. The social science newsletter should be

continued. Training workshops related to completed research

projects should be conducted for NPS managers and staff.

4. The South Florida NPS social science program should undergo

a careful evaluation. This evaluation should be conducted by

the CPSU managers committee, along with the WASO Social

Science Program. The review group should include NPS

managers and external social scientists. The review should

focus on identifying accomplishments during Stage 1 and 2,

weaknesses and problems in the program, and constructive

recommendations for improvement.

5. Based on a favorable review, the South Florida NPS social

science program should be extended. The cooperative

agreements should be renewed, and a new research agenda

should be prepared, focusing on emerging problems that

require social science. In some cases, the IRP’s should be

revised — particularly the General Population Survey and the

Socioeconomic Indicators Project.
48

South Florida NPS Social Science Program

Estimated Budget

Task SF NPS Group WASO Partners

Stage 1. Organizing for science

1.1 Appoint social science coordinator 0 0 0

1.2 Establish social science CPSU 10* 10 0

b. Contract .5 FTE social scientist 25* 0 0

1.3 SF social science conference 5 5 $

1.4 Federal Interest Lands research plan 5 5 $

1.5 Add social science to Science Subgroup 0 0 $

Total for Stage 1 45 20 $

Stage 2. Building a research base

2.1 Regional Research Projects

a. General Population Survey 45 0 $

b. Economic Impact Study 65 0 $

2.2 Park Cluster Research Projects

a. Stakeholders Inventory 30 0 $

2.3 Critical Park and Preserve Research Projects 30 0 0

Total for Stage 2 170 0 $
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 49

Stage 3. Diversifying research

3.1 Add partners to CPSU 0 0 0

3.2 Maintain CPSU and .5 FTE scientist 40* 0 $

3.3 Regional Research Projects

a. Socioeconomic Indicators Project 25 0 $

b. SF NPS Futures Project 18 0 $

3.4 Park Cluster Research Projects

a. General Visitor Profile 45 0 $

b. NPS Neighbors Project 55 0 $

3.5 Additional Park and Preserve Research Projects23 0 $

Total for Stage 3 206 0 $

Stage 4. Completing the research program

4.1 Complete IRP’s 0 0 0

4.2 Maintain CPSU and .5 FTE scientist 45* 0 $

4.3 Park and Preserve Projects 55 0 $

4.4 Evaluate Social Science Program 0 5 0

Total for Stage 4 100 5 $

Overall Total 521 25 $**

* annual costs, ** offsetting contribution by partners
50
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 51

Appendices

I
52
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 53

Appendix I. Review of NPS Policy and Planning

Documents

The purpose of this appendix is to provide a detailed description of

the mandates and other rationale for the NPS to conduct social

science in South Florida. This appendix has three parts. First,

national-level policies and mandates for social science are

presented. Second, park and preserve-level mandates are described.

These mandates are found in the enabling legislation of each South

Florida NPS unit and in their management plans. Third,

partnership mandates are presented. These mandates emerge from

state and national ecosystem management initiatives in South

Florida.

National Mandate for NPS Social Science

A viable mandate for scientific research in the NPS exists, and

includes the social sciences. It emerges from the NPS Organic Act

and mission, management policies, individual parks’ enabling

legislation and formal planning documents.

The Organic Act of 1916 states as the NPS mission:

...to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the

wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such

manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations (16 U.S.C. sec. 1).

The social sciences are clearly mandated by the mission statement,

as they are necessary tools for both protecting resources (such as

studies of visitor impacts) and providing for enjoyment (such as

studies of visitor experiences).

The mandate for NPS scientific research (all disciplines, not just

social science) also emerges from many additional federal laws.

These include, for example, the:

• Lacey Act (1900)

• Historic Sites Act (1935)

• Wilderness Act (1964)
54

• Concessions Policy Act (1965)

• National Environmental Policy Act (1969)

• Endangered Species Act (1973)

• Clean Air Act (1977)

• National Parks and Recreation Act (1978)

• Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979)

• Native American Graves Protection Act (1990)

All require that affected agencies, including the NPS, engage in

scientific research to meet regulatory commitments.

A general mandate for science also emerges from official NPS

management policies. The NPS Management Polices manual

contains specific guidelines regarding the role of science in

fulfilling the NPS mission:

The Service will develop, gather, compile, store, analyze update and

employ adequate natural, historic, social, economic and demographic

data relevant to planning and management at each park (National Park

Service, 1988: 11-12).

To gather such information, a systematic program of research is

authorized:

A program of natural and social science research will be conducted to

support NPS staff in carrying out the mission of the National Park

Service by providing an accurate scientific basis for planning,

development, and management decisions (National Park Service, 1988:

iv-2).

Enabling Legislation for South Florida NPS Units

A mandate for social science research can be found in the enabling

legislation (and related language) that created each of the four

national park units in South Florida.

Big Cypress National Preserve was established on October 11,

1974, (Public Law 93-440) and expanded in 1988 (Public Law

100-301). The purpose of the preserve is:

to assure the preservation, conservation, and protection of the natural,

scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, and recreational values of the Big
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 55

Cypress Watershed in the State of Florida and to provide for the

enhancement and public enjoyment thereof (see GMP 1991, p. 315).

The enabling legislation for the Preserve includes additional,

detailed requirements for its management. Several requirements

focus on the need to balance resource protection and use:

• developing rules and regulations for activities including motorized vehicles;

oil and gas exploration and extraction; agriculture; hunting, fishing, and

trapping.

• permitting, subject to reasonable regulations, members of the Miccosukee

Tribe and the Seminole Tribe “...to continue their usual and customary use

and occupancy, ...including hunting, fishing and trapping on a subsistence

basis and traditional tribal ceremonials.”

• establishing “recreational access points and roads, rest and recreation areas,

wildlife protection, hunting, fishing, frogging, and other traditional

recreational opportunities.”

• providing Congress with a report on the public’s use of the preserve and

recommendations for future management of the preserve and the addition

(Public Law 93-440, Public Law 100-301).

The House and Senate Reports accompanying the enabling

legislation provide further guidance for Preserve management:

...National Preserves may accommodate significant recreational uses

without impairing the natural values, but such public use and enjoyment

would be limited to activities where, or periods when, such human

visitation would not interfere with, or disrupt, the values the area is

created to preserve (House Report 93-502, see SFM 1992, p. 8).

Social science research is required to achieve the legal provisions

to protect the natural, scenic, hydrologic, floral and faunal, and

recreational values of the Preserve.

Biscayne National Park was first established as Biscayne National

Monument in 1968:

in order to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration,

recreation, and enjoyment of present and future generations a rare

combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life in a tropical

setting of great natural beauty (Public Law 90-606; see SFM 1990, p. 4).

The monument was expanded in 1974 (Public Law 93-477). In

1980, it was expanded again and redesignated Biscayne National

Park (Public Law 96-287).
56

Congressional intent for park management exists in the legislative

history of the 1980 act. Congress acknowledged “the unique and

special values” of the park’s water-associated resources and their

vulnerability to “destruction or damage due to easy human access

by water, as well as the pollutant transmission ability of the water

medium” (SFM 1990, p. 4).

Congress also commented on visitor use, stating that “It’s

important that the resources of the area be made available to all the

Nation’s visitors in terms of access and interpretation, and not to be

operated merely as a local park or recreation area....” (House

Report 96-693).

Social science research is required to achieve the legal provisions

to protect the park’s natural values and to identify appropriate

strategies for access and development.

Dry Tortugas National Park was first established as Fort Jefferson

National Monument in 1935 “for the preservation of Fort Jefferson

and the historical and educational interests in the area.” In 1980,

legislation was passed to broaden the monument’s purpose “to

emphasize the protection of the marine environment and its

associated marine animals” (RMP 1995, p. 1). In 1992 Fort

Jefferson became Dry Tortugas National Park, established

In order to preserve and protect for the education, inspiration and

enjoyment of present and future generations, nationally significant

natural, historic, scenic, marine, and scientific values in South Florida

(Public Law 105-525; see RMP 1995, p. 2).

The 1992 legislation creating the national park included specific

management guidelines related to research. For example, the park

should “provide opportunities for scientific research.” Long-term

resource monitoring is identified as a key research need (RMP

1995, p. 2).

Social science research is required to achieve the legal provisions

to protect the park’s resources for the “education, inspiration, and

enjoyment” of visitors and to contribute to the park’s specific

research objectives.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 57

Everglades National Park was authorized by Congress in 1934

(with land to be acquired by donation) and then formally dedicated

in 1947. The 1934 act presents clear guidelines about the

management of the park:

The said area or areas shall be permanently reserved as a wilderness,

and no development of the project or plan for the entertainment of

visitors shall be undertaken which will interfere with the preservation

intact of the unique flora and fauna and the essential primitive natural

conditions now prevailing in the area (see Master Plan 1979, p. 59).

...nothing in this Act shall be construed to lessen any existing rights of

the Seminole Indians which are not in conflict with the purposes for

which the Everglades National Park is created (16 U.S.C. 410b).

Social science research is required to achieve the legal provisions

of balancing visitor “entertainment,” use and preservation.

Management Plans for South Florida NPS Units

Park unit management plans also provide a rationale for science.

Each national park unit is legally required to follow a formal

planning process to carry out national and individual park

mandates:

Planning will be conducted as a dynamic, continuous process for

making choices about how to accomplish the National Park Service’s

preservation and enjoyment mandates. This process will include the

gathering and analysis of data, an assessment of existing conditions and

future trends, the identification of issues that need to be addressed, an

evaluation of alternative actions, and the selection of a preferred

alternative. Formal planning projects will generally result in the

preparation of documents for use by NPS employees, the public, and

the Congress (http://www.nps.gov, December 1995).

The primary planning documents are the Statement for

Management (SFM) and the General Management Plan (GMP).1

The SFM describes:

the park’s purpose, the nature and significance of its resources, the

existing uses of its lands and waters, its regional context and adjacent

1 Another planning document that some park units still use is the Master Plan. Master Plans have

been replaced by General Management Plans. However, some park units that have not yet developed

a GMP are using an existing Master Plan to help guide management.
58

land considerations, the legislative and administrative requirements for

its management, the influences on park resources and the experience of

park visitors, and nonrecreational park use by native Americans and

others. This information [is] used to identify major issues and problems

that need to be addressed, to determine needs for additional

information, and to establish park management objectives, ... (http://

www.nps.gov, December 1995).

The purpose of the GMP is to:

set forth a management concept for the park; establish a role for the

unit within the context of regional trends and plans for conservation,

recreation, transportation, economic development, and other regional

issues; and identify strategies for resolving issues and achieving

management objectives,.... (http://www.nps.gov, December 1995).

Other plans — called “implementation plans” — deal with specific

issues only generally addressed in the GMP. Implementation plans

include resource management plans, land protection plans,

development concept plans, mineral management plans,

concession management plans, backcountry management plans,

interpretive prospectuses, special resource studies, collection

management plans, historic structure reports, exhibit plans, and

others.

Science information is a necessary component of management

planning.

More than 25 selected planning documents were reviewed for the

four South Florida national park units. Management objectives,

issues and policies that require or could benefit from social science

research were identified. In some cases, social science is

mentioned explicitly; in other cases, implicitly. Some of the plans

are more than 10 years old. Management objectives and issues

from older plans are often still relevant; however, more recent

concerns and issues that require social science research may be

missing. The review is presented in the following section and

represents the best information on needs and priorities from

available plans.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 59

Big Cypress National Preserve

The following planning documents were reviewed for Big Cypress

National Preserve:

• Statement for Management, 1992

• General Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1991

• Interpretive Prospectus, 1984

• Addendum to the Land Protection Plan, 1994

• Resource Management Plan, 1989

• Hurricane Plan, 1995

• Environmental Statement (Proposed National Freshwater Reserve), 1975

Three key management issues that require social science research

were identified:

• Balancing Preservation and Use

• Understanding Visitors

• Regional Cooperation

The need to balance preservation and use was identified in the

Statement for Management, General Management Plan and

Resource Management Plan. Social science research is required to

meet specific objectives related to this balance.

The need to meet preservation and visitor use objectives is

highlighted in the introduction to the General Management Plan:

The plan is needed to address problems and management concerns at

the preserve that are related to visitor use (including hunting, off-road

vehicle [ORV] driving, and on-site interpretive programs), the

protection of plant and animal species listed as threatened or

endangered (plus species of concern listed by the state), and the

preservation of important natural and cultural resource values (for

example, the hydrologic regime, critical vegetation types, and

archeological sites).... (GMP/FEIS, Volume 1 1991, p. 3).

The Statement for Management describes objectives developed to

manage hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities:

(1) Determine the level of hunting and fishing use in relation to the

conditions and populations of targeted species in order to allow hunting

and fishing at a level compatible with protection of the resources.
60

(2) Monitor impacts of these activities on hydrologic, scenic, floral and

faunal values and other natural and cultural resources of the preserve

and enforce laws and regulations applicable to these topics.

(3) Determine what type of non-traditional non-consumptive

recreational activities are compatible with the purpose of the preserve

(SFM 1992, pp. 39-40).

The Statement for Management includes additional objectives that

focus on ORVs and hunting:

Establish a complete research program on the impacts of ORVs and

modify existing ORV management program where new data directs.

Develop a Wildlife Management Plan to administer the hunting

program within the preserve. Preserve managers must look closely at

hunting levels, both to assure a quality hunting experience, but also to

afford protection for preserve resources (SFM 1992, p. 28).

The Resource Management Plan presents an important

management need:

...to establish a baseline understanding of the nature, extent, and

condition of the resources, then to identify those variables, whether

natural or man-caused, that impact the future viability of the natural

systems and cultural resources (RMP 1989, p. 11).

Social science research is required to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to balance preservation and use.

The need to better understand visitors was identified in the General

Management Plan and Statement for Management. Social science

activities are required to meet specific objectives related to

understanding visitors. For example, the Statement for

Management lists several objectives to undertake research related

to visitors and other preserve users. These include:

Conduct a full range visitor use survey to assist management in

determining and planning for development of the physical facilities and

services needed by the park visitor. This survey should include the

visitor’s perceptions of a preserve and their management expectations.

Monitor social/economic/demographic impacts of Indian use,

occupancy and potential for resource impacts to allow management to

identify their particular needs and possible mitigation strategies.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 61

Develop methodology that would enable the preserve to routinely

collect basic visitor use statistics, particularly in the vast backcountry

areas, to include the Florida Trail, and along the high speed road

corridors.

Develop trail, backcountry, recreational use management plans to guide

future management decisions (SFM 1992, p. 30).

In the General Management Plan, the need to study visitor use and

oil and gas development is presented:

No visitor survey about oil and gas development has been conducted

for the preserve, and no data exist about visitor perceptions or how

visitor use may be altered because of development....three major

questions that need to be answered have been identified:

(1) Why do visitors go to Big Cypress National Preserve?

(2) What are the important values of the preserve?

(3) How is visitor enjoyment of certain values affected by existing,

proposed, or potential future oil and gas development (GMP/FEIS,

Volume 1 1991, p. 336-337)?

Social science research is required to fulfill management objectives

and mandates to better understand visitors and improve

management planning and decision-making related to visitors.

The need to foster regional cooperation was identified in the

General Management Plan and Statement for Management. Social

science activities are required to meet specific objectives related to

regional cooperation. For example, the General Management Plan

describes the need for regional management strategies:

Park resources and visitor enjoyment are vulnerable to impairment by

pollutants, visual intrusions, odors, noise, and other impacts associated

with land development, mineral extraction, utility line construction,

distant power plant operations, and aircraft overflights. It is the policy

of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service to take

the initiative to work cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and

resolve potential threats. Such management requires long-range

strategic planning, accurate scientific data, a sensitivity to crossboundary effects of management decisions, as well as a commitment to

cooperate in the identification and implementation of regionally

coordinated management strategies (GMP/FEIS, Volume 1 1991, p. 15).
62

The Statement for Management includes the following long-term

management objective:

Maintain good public relations with permanent residents within the

preserve and foster public appreciation and understanding of the

significance of the Big Cypress Watershed and its plant and animal

communities within the South Florida ecosystem (SFM 1992, p. 37).

Social science research is critical to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to foster regional cooperation.

Biscayne National Park

The following planning documents were reviewed for Biscayne

National Park:

• Statement for Management/Basic Operations Statement, 1990

• General Management Plan/Development Concept Plan/Wilderness Study/

Environmental Assessment, 1983

• Master Plan, 1970

• Interpretive Prospectus, 1987

• Land Protection Plan, 1988

• Resource Protection Case Study, 1982

Three key management issues that require social science research

were identified:

• Balancing Preservation and Use

• Understanding Visitors

• Regional Cooperation

The need to balance preservation and use was identified in

Statement for Management, General Management Plan, Master

Plan, Interpretive Prospectus, and Resource Protection Case Study.

Social science research is required to meet specific objectives

related to this balance. For example, the Statement for

Management lists as a long-term management objective:

To encourage and participate in natural and social scientific research for

the purpose of developing adequate baseline data and monitoring

changes in Park resources (SFM, Basic Operations Statement 1990, p. 56).
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 63

The Statement for Management presents more detailed

management objectives related to preservation and use. For

example:

Appropriate controls need to be placed on recreational activities to

minimize visitor use and resource damage (SFM, Basic Operations

Statement 1990, p. 22).

To systematically and professionally monitor, document, and evaluate

so appropriate recommendations for preservation and/or mitigation can

be made of cultural resources subject to natural and human impacts

(SFM, Basic Operations Statement 1990, p. 24).

To document through resource management monitoring and research

programs the effect of canal discharges, fishing (commercial and sport),

fish stocking, boat use, shoreline development, artificial reef placement,

etc., on the resources of the Park; so that actions can be initiated to halt

the damage in a rapidly growing urban area (SFM, Basic Operations

Statement 1990, p. 55).

The Master Plan includes an objective related to preservation and

use:

Encourage the broadest possible range of recreational pursuits

throughout the Monument, wherever such activities do not interfere

with or materially damage the natural values of the park (Master Plan

1970, p.46).

The Interpretive Prospectus includes a program objective to:

orient visitors to encourage their participation in a range of recreational

activities within the park that do not adversely affect natural, cultural,

or aesthetic values or unnecessarily duplicate programs, facilities, or

opportunities available outside the park (Interpretive Prospectus 1987,

p. 2).

Social science research is required to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to balance preservation and use.

The need to better understand visitors was identified in the

Statement for Management. Social science activities are required to

meet specific objectives related to understanding visitors. For

example, the Statement for Management includes as one of its

short-term management objectives:

To conduct and complete “An Evaluation of Visitor Use and

Expectations at Biscayne National Park” and to use the findings to
64

better meet the needs of the Park users and to improve our

interpretation to them of National Park Service policies and objectives

in managing the resources of the Park (SFM, Basic Operations

Statement 1990, p. 58).

Social science research is required to fulfill management objectives

and mandates to better understand visitors and improve

management planning and decision-making related to visitors.

The need to foster regional cooperation was identified in the

Statement for Management, General Management Plan, Master

Plan and Resource Protection Case Study. Social science activities

are required to meet specific objectives related to regional

cooperation. For example, the Statement for Management lists the

following management objectives related to regional cooperation

and development:

To manage natural resources through a flexible program designed to

cope with the changing pressures on the Park from regional

development and an expected increase in Park use (SFM, Basic

Operations Statement 1990, p. 22).

To continue reviewing and commenting on adverse development

proposals such as dredge and fill permits, which would negatively

impact Park resources and cooperate with Federal, State, and local

regulatory agencies in finding other alternatives that cause less damage

or none at all (SFM, Basic Operations Statement 1990, p. 23).

To coordinate planning and management of Biscayne National Park

with that of the State’s Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and the area

covered by the County’s Biscayne Bay Management Plan (SFM, Basic

Operations Statement 1990, p. 57).

To prevent threats to Park resources, anticipate, avoid and resolve

conflicts with Federal, State and local land management and regulatory

agencies wherever possible, but elevate conflicts to higher decision

levels when necessary to prevent resource impairment (SFM, Basic

Operations Statement 1990, p. 58).

The Master Plan includes the following management objective:

Work very closely with the various county, state, and federal agencies

to effectively express the interests of park management in any proposal

for development or activity which could have impact on the park

(Master Plan 1970, p. 48).
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 65

Social science research is critical to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to foster regional cooperation.

Dry Tortugas National Park

The following planning documents were reviewed for Dry Tortugas

National Park:

• Draft Statement for Management, 1982 (Fort Jefferson National Monument)

• General Management Plan, 1983 (Fort Jefferson National Monument)

• Resource Management Plan, 1995

Two key management issues that require social science research

were identified:

• Balancing Preservation and Use

• Employee and Organizational Concerns Related to Isolation

The need to balance preservation and use was identified in the

Statement for Management, General Management Plan and

Resource Management Plan. Social science activities are required

to meet specific objectives related to this balance. For example, the

Statement for Management presents long-term objectives that

focus on carrying capacity:

To develop and implement appropriate public use carrying capacities,

while allowing only minimum impact activities within the monument,

in order to maintain its marine wilderness character and to ensure its

lasting value for baseline environmental monitoring and research.

To monitor visitor use levels and patterns, as well as the monument’s

resources, so that appropriate management actions can be implemented

if excessive visitor use impacts are identified (SFM 1992, p. 4).

The General Management Plan directs that:

The impacts of visitor uses on marine life will be monitored; if

necessary, additional management actions, including new regulations,

will be implemented to protect the integrity of the marine ecosystem

(GMP 1983, p.15).

In the Resource Management Plan, a comprehensive plan is

proposed to assess and manage the impacts of increasing visitation

on park resources. Specific steps in this plan are presented:
66

Step one is to conduct a visitor profile study to determine attitudes and

expectations of park visitors. A second part of the investigation should

include a carrying capacity study to determine tolerances of visitors and

resources to certain use levels...Without a solid knowledge of the park

visitor, visitor trends, and the effects of increased visitation on natural

and cultural resources, managers can not support regulations to control

visitor use and behavior that are bound to be controversial (Draft RMP

1995, pp. 74, 0083).

Social science research is required to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to balance preservation and use.

The need to address employee and organizational concerns was

identified in the Statement for Management. Social science

activities can help deal with these concerns. For example, a longterm management objective related to employee isolation is:

To recognize the special needs associated with living and working at

the monument’s remote location and to implement appropriate

personnel and management practices to facilitate employee productivity

and satisfaction (SFM 1992, p. 3).

The Statement for Management also include objectives to improve

its administrative relationship with Everglades National Park to

promote the most “effective and efficient management” of the

park:

Conduct a comprehensive, objective review of the administrative

arrangements and management organization for the monument with the

aim of implementing institutional changes that will improve long-term

management continuity, promote increased efficiency and effectiveness,

and that will enhance the development of an increased capability for

management self-sufficiency (SFM 1992, p. 9).

Social science research is critical to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to address employee and organizational

concerns related to the park’s isolation.

Everglades National Park

The following planning documents were reviewed for Everglades

National Park:

• Statement for Management, 1991

• Master Plan, 1979
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 67

• Final Environmental Statement/Master Plan, 1979

• Draft Environmental Statement/General Management Plan, 1976

• Management Objectives, 1993 (from planning workshop)

• Statement for Interpretation, (1993/1994)

• Backcountry Management Plan, 1981

• Wilderness Recommendation, 1974

• Final Environmental Statement/Wilderness Recommendation, 1978

• Draft Land Protection Plan, 1985

• Land Protection Plan, East Everglades Addition, 1991

• Fire Management and Environmental Assessment, 1991

• Bike Trail System Study (Phase One, Part One), n.d.

• Gulf Coast Development Concept Plan, 1990

• Historic Resource Study, 1986

Four key management issues that require social science research

were identified:

• Balancing Preservation and Use

• Visitor Carrying Capacity

• Understanding Visitors

• Regional Cooperation

The need to balance preservation and use was identified in the

Master Plan and the Statement for Management. Social science

activities are required to meet specific objectives related to this

balance. For example, in a discussion of Florida Bay the Master

Plan states that:

What needs to be resolved here are the conflicts between recreation use

and preservation of the natural resources. Of particular concern are the

potential depletion of the fishery resource and disturbance and

destruction of habitats and spawning areas that could be caused by

boating and fishing activities (Master Plan 1979, p. 49).

The Statement for Management refers explicitly to the need for

integrated research:

Research efforts must be integrated into a framework which documents

ecosystem functions and dynamics, supports management decisions,
68

and monitors effects of both natural and man-induced environmental

conditions (SFM 1991, p. 27).

Social science research is required to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to balance preservation and use.

The need to establish and monitor visitor carrying capacity was

identified in the Statement for Management, Master Plan, General

Management Plan, Wilderness Recommendation, and Backcountry

Management Plan. Social science research is required to meet

specific carrying capacity objectives. For example, the Master Plan

describes the general need for this type of research:

The physical, ecological, and psychological carrying capacity of the

park is unknown and needs to be determined (Master Plan 1979, p. 34).

The Statement for Management confirms the need for this type of

research to help make decisions related to use limits:

The impacts of visitor access and recreational uses such as cycling,

motorboats, backcountry camping, fishing, etc., need to be evaluated to

provide a basis for management decisions involving visitor use limits,

speed restrictions, road design, closures, etc. (SFM 1991, p. 11).

The Backcountry Management Plan provides a specific wilderness

perspective on the need for carrying capacity:

Because of the unique quality of the experiences obtainable in the

Everglades backcountry, and the physical limitations, both sociological

and environmental to backcountry use, indications are that overuse,

crowding, and use conflicts are imminent, not in the sense of

individuals per acre, but rather at selected campsites and along popular

routes...The purpose of setting use limits or defining carrying capacity

is two-fold; resource preservation and ensuring the opportunity for

solitude and a high quality wilderness experience (Backcountry

Management Plan 1981, p. 4, 51).

The Statement for Management provides a more recent perspective

on backcountry use and carrying capacity:

Backcountry use needs careful monitoring and evaluation to determine

carrying capacity of current facilities, assess impacts on the resources,

and plan for future needs. Special regulations such as no-wake zones

and temporary closures to powerboats may be necessary for the

protection of manatee and wading bird rookeries (SFM 1991, p. 20).
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 69

Social science research is required to fulfill management objectives

and mandates to establish carrying capacity limits.

The need to better understand visitors was identified in the Master

Plan, General Management Plan, Backcountry Management Plan,

and Everglades Bike System Trail Study. Social science activities

are required to meet specific objectives related to understanding

visitors. For example, the Master Plan presents the following

objective that focuses on visitors:

Research should be initiated to evaluate the relationships between the

park and its visitors. Sociological and cultural characteristics of park

visitors should be inventoried, along with visitor expectations and the

degree to which the park fulfills them (Master Plan 1979, p. 34).

The Backcountry Management Plan describes the need for

consistent information to guide planning and decision making for

certain visitor uses:

...information regarding the numbers of individuals using the

backcountry, where they go and when is incomplete at best. Visitor use

figures are arrived at from a variety of sources...Each data source is

incomplete and only covers a portion of the visitors present at any one

time. In addition, the degree of overlap between data sources in [sic]

uncertain...A coordinated means of synthesizing information still needs

to be found (Backcountry Management Plan 1981, pp. 68-69).

A plan for a bike system trail refers to the lack of a “scientific user

study” to provide information about bicycle user groups

(Everglades Bike Trail System Study, n.d., p. 18).

Social science research is required to fulfill management objectives

and mandates to better understand visitors and improve

management planning and decision-making related to visitors.

The need to foster regional cooperation was identified in the

Master Plan and General Management Plan. Social science

activities are required to meet specific objectives related to regional

cooperation. For example, the Master Plan includes the statement:

...No matter how well the park is planned and managed internally, it

cannot survive alone. It will become increasingly important in the years

ahead that a sophisticated and innovative park management continue to
70

actively pursue a regional partnership with other interests in South

Florida (Master Plan 1979, p. 2).

The General Management Plan describes the importance of

cooperative planning:

Everglades National Park is a microcosm that reflects changes

throughout much of the South Florida region...Preservation of this

delicate ecological balance requires cooperative planning by major

private groups with an interest in regional development (Draft Env.

Statement/GMP 1976, p. 101).

Specific regional issues related to cooperative planning are

identified in the Master Plan. For example:

Encroaching peripheral developments to support residential,

commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities must be carefully

planned.

Tourist services must be adequately planned and situated to serve the

increasing numbers of visitors to South Florida in a way that will

enhance both the park and communities outside.

Environmental education and research must be encouraged and

instituted cooperatively with local school and conservation groups

(Master Plan 1979, pp. 30-31).

The Statement for Management has as one objective:

To cooperate with other agencies, private organizations, educational

institutions, and the public to promote and perpetuate the protection of

park resources and promote park values (SFM 1991, p. 31).

Social science research is important to fulfill the management

objectives and mandates to foster regional cooperation.

Partnership Mandates

Several federal and state initiatives (through tasks forces,

commissions) are underway to restore, protect and manage South

Florida as an ecosystem. These initiatives include:

• The Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force

• The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

* Management and Coordination Working Group

* Four Subgroups:
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 71

1. Science

2. Management

3. Infrastructure

4. Public Information and Education

• The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

The National Park Service is an active participant (through the

Department of the Interior) in the task forces and Governor’s

Commission. The following reports and plans of these task forces

and commission were reviewed:

• The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies,

1995

• 1995 Annual Report, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group

• 1994 Annual Report, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group

• South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Scientific Information Needs, 1994

• Initial Report of The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South

Florida, 1995

The research and management objectives described in the reports

directly affect national park units in South Florida and provide

additional rationale for social science research.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force

In 1993, the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force was

formed in response to the mandate from Vice President Gore’s

National Performance Review to adopt “a proactive approach to

ensuring a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment

through ecosystem management” (Ecosystem Approach 1995, p.

1). A working group was formed by the Task Force to help improve

agencies’ understanding of an ecosystem approach to management.

The working group conducted seven case studies to learn about

ecosystem management efforts around the country — Anacostia

River watershed, Coastal Louisiana, Great Lakes Basin, Pacific

Northwest forests, Prince William Sound, South Florida, and the

Southern Appalachians.
72

The Task Force Report presents six recommendations related to the

role of science. Two of these recommendations support the need

for social science research in the “ecosystem approach.”

Regional science planning bodies. Agencies should establish or

support regional science planning bodies to: assess the current state of

knowledge regarding a region or ecosystem; identify major gaps in

understanding; and allocate responsibilities consistent with agency

expertise, resources, and mandates...Regional science planning should

incorporate a wide range of natural scientists and social scientists,

address both ecological and socioeconomic issues, and incorporate an

explicit goal of fostering integration among disciplines.

Standards for ecosystem studies. Agencies should develop standards

for ecosystem studies emphasizing: studies applicable on several scales;

interactions among species, groups of species, and habitat, and the

impact of human activities; socioeconomic priorities and needs;

monitoring as a science priority; protocols establishing ecological

indicators for monitoring ecosystem sustainability; determining the

range of natural variability; techniques for restoring damaged

ecosystems; and models to link management activities with changes in

selected ecological indicators (Ecosystem Approach 1995, p. 13).

The Task Force also presents a framework for applying an

ecosystem approach that includes several critical steps. One key

step is to:

Characterize the historical ecosystem and the present economic,

environmental, and social conditions and trends for the ecosystem

[where] the social environment can be described in terms of such

factors as the location and distribution of communities, the human uses

of resources, and the political and economic issues related to resource

use. The economic environment can be characterized by such variables

as local employment patterns, work force availability and skills, and the

location and distribution of important economic centers...(Ecosystem

Approach 1995, p. 50).

The critical importance of natural and social science research in

ecosystem management efforts, such as South Florida, is

acknowledged by the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task

Force.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 73

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

In 1993, a five-year Interagency Agreement on South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration was signed by six federal agencies: the

Departments of the Interior, Commerce, Army, Justice and

Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. A South

Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was formed (separate

from the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force

described above). The task force, assisted by its Management and

Coordination Working Group, develops policies, strategies and

priorities for ecosystem restoration and maintenance. Four

Subgroups were created to carry out efforts related to 1) science, 2)

management, 3) infrastructure, and 4) public information and

education. In 1995, membership on the interagency task force was

broadened to include the Lieutenant Governor of the State of

Florida and the chairmen of the Miccosokee Tribe of Indians of

Florida and the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

The Task Force has as one objective to:

Establish research priorities and implement a process for coordinating

research on the South Florida ecosystem, including Florida Bay, which

includes development of a baseline scientific condition assessment and

indicator monitoring program, and appropriate biological and

hydrological modeling to evaluate ecosystem restoration objectives and

programs (1995 Annual Report, South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

Working Group, p. 7).

An indicator monitoring program could include socioeconomic

indicators. Identifying and monitoring changes in significant

social, economic, cultural and political indicators could contribute

to a strong interdisciplinary research program on the South Florida

ecosystem.

The Science Subgroup identified specific science objectives and

needs. The overall objective of the Subgroup is:

...to develop an interagency, interdisciplinary science program that will

guide restoration actions by determining the relationships between

ecosystem function and hydrologic regime and describing the

hydrologic conditions required to support the characteristic landscapes,

biodiversity, and wildlife abundance of predrainage South Florida.
74

Other important objectives are to provide 1) a scientific basis for

management decisions (e.g., regulatory actions, land use permitting)

and 2) information that could lead to increased beneficial interactions

between natural and human communities (South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration: Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 12).

Specific needs for research at the ecosystem level are identified,

including the need to understand connections between the human

and natural environment:

...Both tangible and intangible connections between natural and human

systems need to be quantified and widely communicated while

reinstatement of a sustainable system is still possible.

Potential opportunities need to be explored for configurations of land

and water that lead to ecosystem restoration and enhanced quality of

life and economic sustainability in human communities (South Florida

Ecosystem Restoration: Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 6).

The following questions are posed for research related to natural

and human interactions:

What are the critical feedbacks of the natural system to urban and

agricultural systems and vice versa?

How will the natural system and its support functions for humans be

affected by different populations levels and land use configurations?

What landscape combinations will allow healthy natural systems and

urban and agricultural systems to coexist? (South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration: Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 14)

The Science Subgroup also identifies specific research needs for

each of the 10 sub-regions into which the South Florida ecosystem

is divided. In the needs outlined for the Upper East Coast-St. Lucie

River Area, the importance of landscape planning and forecasting

models is described. The interdisciplinary nature (natural/social

science research) of the modeling is explicit:

...Landscape planning models should be developed with a capacity to

reliably forecast natural resource, ecological, economic, and social

consequences of engineering works, land use changes, and hydrologic

management policies in the region (South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration: Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 155).

For the Lower East Coast Urban Area, the following research

recommendations are presented related to natural-human
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 75

environment interactions:

Conduct a short-term, quantitative analysis to determine, from a water

supply and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration perspective, how

various alternative scenarios of future land use and associated local

water management in presently undeveloped wetlands between the

urban east coast and the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades

National Park...would affect water supply and waste management in

support of ecosystem restoration (South Florida Ecosystem Restoration:

Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 415).

Investigate the attitudes of homeowners, professional landscapers, and

nurserymen to determine the most effective methods of promoting use

of xeriscape landscaping with native plants (South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration: Scientific Information Needs, 1994, p. 417).

Conduct and/or support research on the attitudes of the region’s diverse

groups of urban residents, private landowners, and tourists about

wildlife, habitat, environmental protection, and water conservation and

methods to influence those attitudes (South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration: Scientific Information Needs 1994, p. 420).

The Science Plan for Florida Bay includes several goals and

objectives for research. One of the objectives focuses on:

Separating anthropogenically induced changes in Florida Bay from

natural system variation. Both natural disturbances (e.g. hurricanes,

freezes) and long-term climate processes (drought cycle, sea-level rise)

have strongly influenced the structure and function of the Bay. These

same processes may mask or exacerbate the effects of anthropogenic

effects within the context of natural system function and variation

(South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Scientific Information Needs

1994, p. 369).

Social science research is critical to understand human-ecological

interactions in the South Florida ecosystem, understand people’s

attitudes toward restoration, and address the corresponding

research needs identified by the Science Subgroup.

The Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida

In 1994, the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South

Florida was created by Executive Order to “make

recommendations for achieving a healthy Everglades ecosystem

that can coexist and be mutually supportive of a sustainable South
76

Florida economy and quality communities” (Initial Report 1995, p.

4). The Commission consists of 37 voting members, including

representatives from the following government agencies and

organizations:

• the business and economic community

• public interest and environmental organizations

• county and city officials

• the South Florida Water Management District

• regional planning councils

• the secretaries of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Florida Department of

Commerce, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida

Department of Community Affairs

• the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of

Florida

• the Florida House of Representatives and Florida Senate

The Commission also includes five non-voting members who

represent federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior

(Initial Report 1995, p. 25).

The Commission has outlined many objectives for sustainable

development in South Florida, including the following:

To increase the use of better, more compact, and functional urban

design.

To attract, support, protect, and retain industries critical to a balanced,

quality economy such as: tourism, agriculture, and international trade.

To create an array of cultural and recreational opportunities that are

affordable and available to all.

To improve regional governance and planning coordination,

cooperation and effectiveness.

To develop a common scientific data pool (GIS) to be used for

implementing ecosystem management in South Florida.

To establish and coordinate science and research priorities for the South

Florida ecosystem (Initial Report 1995, pp. 7-11).

Social science research has an important role to play in achieving

these objectives.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 77

Appendix II. Summaries of Existing Social Science

Studies

This appendix includes detailed summaries of social science

studies relevant to the South Florida NPS units. It was prepared by

the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.

The studies are organized by topic, e.g., economics, visitor studies

for each NPS unit. Each study is described by: 1) author and title,

2) date of study, 3) key population studied, 4) methods, 5) key

findings and 6) location.

Big Cypress National Preserve

Visitors Studies

1. Author and Title:

Jansen, Deborah K. Big Cypress Public Use Study.

2. Date of Study:

July 1983-June 1986

3. Key Population Studied:

A survey of recreationists

4. Methods:

Personal interviews

5. Key Findings:

The study determines that the most popular activity of park users is hunting.

Fishing and frogging are other park uses. The survey gives demographic

information and describes the activities of the average park user.

6. Location:

Big Cypress National Preserve

1. Author and Title:

Fogg, George. A Study of South Florida Recreational Patterns.

2. Date of Study:

1990

3. Key Population Studied:

Preserve users

4. Methods:

N/A

5. Key Findings:

The goal of this study was to develop an understanding of South Florida’s

multifaceted user groups, and relate this information in a useful manner to
78

the appropriate decision makers. The information generated will enable

various participating resource oriented agencies and businesses to better

understand the user needs they serve and where there is room and/or need

for improvement and/or expansion. As part of the enabling legislation for

the expansion of Big Cypress National Preserve (Public Law 100-301), the

National Preserve is required to identify the users of the Preserve. This

report addresses, in part, these legislative requirements. It explores who is

using the park and surrounding areas. This seasonal study offers some

assistance to the National Park Service in setting up the format of the

necessary studies for a larger full year study of Big Cypress.

6. Location:

Big Cypress National Preserve

Land Use

1. Author and Title:

Duever, Michael J., et al. Resource Inventory and Analysis of the Big

Cypress National Preserve. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands and

the National Audobon Society.

2. Date of Study:

1979

3. Key Population Studied:

N/A

4. Methods:

N/A

5. Key Findings:

The report is a description of ecosystems, including some information on

fire management, land use, and land use patterns.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park Library

1. Author and Title:

Robinson, Steven D. Tortious Water and Land Use in the Big Cypress

Swamp. Miami Florida.

2. Date of Study:

1971

3. Key Population Studied:

N/A

4. Methods:

This article reviews scientific and policy literature related to the swamp and

reviews Florida law decisions and the relationship between them.

5. Key Findings:

This article attempts to tie solutions to environmental problems to an

existing common law system as in the case of Florida water law and the

crisis in the Big Cypress Swamp. To prevent development in the Swamp,
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 79

government condemnation and zoning ordinances may be used. This article

looks at a third possibility, injunctive relief.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park Library

1. Author and Title:

U.S. National Park Service. Environmental Assessment for Big Cypress

National Preserve Visitor Use and General Development Plan and

Everglades National Park, Shark Valley/Tamiami Development Concept

Plan.

2. Date of Study:

May 1980

3. Key Population Studied:

Park Visitors

4. Methods:

N/A

5. Key Findings:

Alternatives formulated for visitor use and development are evaluated in

terms of impacts on natural, cultural, and socioeconomic environments.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park Library

Biscayne National Park

Visitors Studies

1. Author and Title:

Tilmant, James T., George P. Schmahl, and Douglas Morrison. An

Ecological Assessment of Biscayne National Monument’s Coral Reefs in

Relation to Recreational Use.

2. Date of Study:

Study initiated in 1977.

3. Key Population Studied:

Recreational reef users

4. Methods:

On each study reef, periodic observations are made of fish populations,

coral communities, etc., and levels and types of visitor activities.

5. Key Findings:

Emphasis of this 1977 coral reef study has been to provide basic ecological

data and to determine possible impacts of recreational reef use.

Environmental conditions of four buoyed patch reefs are compared to four

similar unmarked control reefs. Significant ecological impact from

recreational use has not been evident.
80

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

Biscayne National Park Communications Survey. Atlanta, GA: Survey

Research Center, Center for Urban Policy Research, Georgia State

University.

2. Date of Study:

1989

3. Key Population Studied:

Park Visitors

4. Methods:

A survey was conducted at Biscayne National Park during the summer of

1989 in order to develop, implement and evaluate mass media for increasing

public awareness of the park and encouraging appropriate use of the park’s

resources. The survey was designed as a mailback instrument administered

to visitors of the park during the week of July 26-30, 1989. Two reminder

letters were sent over a period of approximately seven weeks. A response

rate of 60.8 percent was obtained, with 295 visitors responding to the

questionnaire.

5. Key Findings:

While previous research focused on the cultural and ethnic differences of

visitors in their perceptions of the natural environment and their

expectations of Biscayne National Park, this study sought to develop,

implement and evaluate mass media for increasing public awareness of the

park and encouraging appropriate use of the park’s resources. This study

used objective data collection methods to obtain information on specific

types of users and their ratings of different management actions proposed

for the park, their awareness of user impacts on the natural resources in

Biscayne Bay, and their evaluation of communicative slogans and appeals.

In addition, the study solicited information on the respondents’ attitudes

toward the environment. The study also attempted to determine whether

environmental attitudes varied by ethnic heritage.

6. Location:

Georgia State University

1. Author and Title:

Division of Interpretive Planning, Harpers Ferry Center. Interpretive

Prospectus: Biscayne National Park, Florida.

2. Date of Study:

October 1987 (amended 1993)

3. Key Population Studied:

Park Visitors
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 81

4. Methods:

A planning team made up of staff members from the park and region.

Demographics and usage of parks are given from a 1989 visitors survey.

5. Key Findings:

This plan establishes the framework for developing a comprehensive

interpretive program at BNP. It explains who Park users are according to a

1989 visitors study and what facilities improvements, exhibits, and outreach

programs are planned.

6. Location:

Biscayne National Park

1. Author and Title:

Marion, Jeffrey L., Joseph W. Roggenbuck, and Roger E. Manning.

Problems and Practices in Backcountry Recreation Management: A Survey

of National Park Service Managers.

2. Date of Study:

1993

3. Key Population Studied:

Backcountry Users

4. Methods:

The mail-back questionnaire was sent to 106 National Park Service units

which have substantial overnight visitation. Response rate was high (92

completed surveys, 93 percent).

5. Key Findings:

A survey of National Park Service managers was conducted, including

Biscayne National Park and Fort Jefferson National Monument, designed to

describe the nature and diversity of visitor-related backcountry management

problems and practices in park areas.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

Snow, Robert E. Recreation Resource Management and Planning Study for

Biscayne National Park. (BNP Visitor Survey: Final Report.) Atlanta, GA:

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Center for Public and Urban Research,

Georgia State University.

2. Date of Study:

November 1989

3. Key Population Studied:

Park users, registered boat owners in Dade County, and general public

4. Methods:

Two survey methods were used: 1) Randomly selected park visitors were
82

selected in winter and summer and given surveys to mail back, and

registered boat owners in Dade County were mailed questionnaires; 2)

telephone surveys were conducted of the general population of Dade

County. Comparisons between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents were

made.

5. Key Findings:

This report describes the results of a series of surveys among BNP visitors,

registered boat owners in Dade County and the general population of Dade

County, conducted in 1987. Surveys provide information on visitor use of

the park, their evaluations of park facilities and programs, their recreational

interests, the problems they encountered, and their demographic

characteristics.

6. Location:

Biscayne National Park

1. Author and Title:

Fabbri, P., editor, “Formulating policies using visitor perceptions of

Biscayne National Park and seashore.” In Recreational Uses of Coastal

Areas, p. 235-254.

2. Date of Study:

1990

3. Key Population Studied:

Park visitors focusing on different ethnic groups and recreational boaters

4. Methods:

Visitor surveys were handed to randomly selected visitors to the park in

winter and summer and returned by mail. A mailback survey was sent to

registered boat owners in Dade County.

5. Key Findings:

From a park management perspective, Biscayne’s data suggest a need for

sensitivity to expectations that different ethnic groups bring to the Park

when designing services and programs offered within the Park. Data also

suggest addressing issues of whether marina recreational areas should have

increased development and formal control to maximize visitor satisfaction,

or remain undeveloped natural areas.

6. Location:

Biscayne National Park

Economics

1. Author and Title:

Menke, Charlotte R. Economic Study of the Biscayne National Monument.

Prepared under Order No. 14-10-910-15 for the NPS, U.S. Dept. of Interior.

Gainesville, Florida: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College

of Business Administration, University of Florida.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 83

2. Date of Study:

1968

3. Key Population Studied:

Dade County Economy

4. Methods:

The study uses average park user profiles, developed in past studies, to

determine economic effects of the park on the Dade County area.

5. Key Findings:

The purpose of the study is to determine the effects which the establishment

of the Biscayne National Monument might have upon Dade County and to

develop other economic and environmental information to assist in a

judgment of the Monument’s feasibility. The Bureau’s responsibility was to

estimate the economic conditions which might result from introducing this

new recreational and conservation resource in the Dade County area.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

Everglades National Park

Economics

1. Author and Title:

Centaur Associates, Inc. Socio-Economic Analysis of Commercial and

Recreational Fisheries in Everglades National Park: Final Report. Prepared

for Everglades National Park. Washington, D.C.: Centaur Associates, Inc.

2. Date of Study:

September 1986

3. Key Population Studied:

Fishermen

4. Methods:

Commercial data were compiled on the ex-vessel value of landings for

Everglades National Park, the State of Florida as a whole, and the counties

of Dade, Collier, and Monroe, which surround the Park. Multipliers were

used, and fish were broken into 12 species categories. Recreational

expenditures were split into two categories: private boat and guide party

recreational fisheries.

5. Key Findings:

This report examines the economic impact of fishing in Everglades National

Park. It summarizes economic impact trends for various Park fisheries and

compares the economic impact of fishing in the Park with the surrounding

Florida areas.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
84

1. Author and Title:

Centaur Associates, Inc. Socio-Economic Assessment of Fishery

Management in Everglades National Park: Final Report. Prepared for

Everglades National Park. Washington, D.C.: Centaur Associates, Inc.

2. Date of Study:

December 1978

3. Key Population Studied:

Commercial and Recreational Fishermen

4. Methods:

Approaches for various alternatives vary somewhat, but all consider the

incremental effect of the alternatives relative to current conditions.

5. Key Findings:

This report provides the requisite socioeconomic impact assessments and

unavoidable adverse effects associated with the commercial and recreational

activity related to 24 fishery management alternatives, including prohibiting

net fishing, imposing bag limits, permit restrictions, boat and motor

restrictions, etc.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Date:

Tilmant, James T. “A History and an Overview of Recent Trends in the

Fisheries of Florida Bay.” From Bulletin of Marine Science, 44(1): 3-33,

1989.

2. Date of Study:

1989

3. Key Population Studied:

Fishermen

4. Methods:

The University of Miami Marine Laboratory fishermen survey and the ENP

fisheries harvest monitoring program both interviewed fishermen at boat

launch sites. Data included: area fished, reported catch, species preference,

and fish lengths. Estimates of number of fishing boats were obtained from

ranger reports, boat trailer counts, and concessionaire reports. Aerial

surveys were also used as verification.

5. Key Findings:

A historical review and description of the fisheries of Florida Bay are given.

It looks at National Park Service monitoring program and provides data on

both commercial and recreational fisheries to describe fishing trends.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 85

1. Author and Title:

Tilmant, James T., Edward S. Rutherford, Richard Dawson, and Edith B.

Thue. An Analysis of the Recreational and Commercial Estuarine Fisheries

Harvest within Everglades National Park, 1958-1985. Report SFRC-86/08.

Homestead, Florida: Everglades National Park.

2. Date of Study:

1986 (draft report; not published or in circulation)

3. Key Population Studied:

Recreational and Commercial Fishermen

4. Methods:

Recreational harvest and harvest rate data have been obtained through

fishermen interviews at boat ramps.

5. Key Findings:

Fisheries data from 1958-1985 were analyzed and stock assessments

conducted on the major species harvested.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

Correia, Michele Edwards. An Economic Benefit Study of Federal Interest

Lands in South Florida.

2. Date of Study:

1995

3. Key Population Studied:

Local economies

4. Methods:

Money Generation Model, developed by National Park Service

5. Key Findings:

The study will use the Money Generation Model developed by the National

Park Service’s Socio-Economic Studies Division. The model is used to

calculate how expenditures by tourists, the Federal government and other

non-local parties result in sales benefits, tax benefits and new job benefits.

The information generated from the study will be used to reinforce the need

for restoration of the South Florida Ecosystem based on the economic

benefits derived from the Federal Interest lands.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
86

Visitor Studies

1. Author and Title:

Dolson, Dana E., and Gary E. Machlis. Visitor Services Project Everglades

National Park. Report 21 (2 volumes). Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho

Cooperative Park Studies Unit.

2. Date of Study:

October 1989

3. Key Population Studied:

Park Visitors

4. Methods:

Front-end interviews were administered and questionnaires were distributed

to a sample of selected visitors entering the park. Visitors completed the

questionnaire during or after their trip and then returned it by mail.

5. Key Findings:

Summary: Results from a study of visitors to Everglades National Park

during February 26 - March 4, 1989. Response rate was 80 percent (468

questionnaires returned out of 584 distributed). Visitor profiles,

expenditures, and activities were analyzed, and general comments about

their visits to the park were solicited.

Volume 2 contains a summary of comments to Question 12, made by

visitors who participated in the study. Their unedited comments are also

included.

6. Location:

FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems

1. Author and Title:

Everglades National Park. A Draft Assessment of Recreational Boating and

Its Potential Impact on Resources within the Crocodile Sanctuary of

Everglades National Park. U.S. Department of the Interior.

2. Date of Study:

Approximate date 1991

3. Key Population Studied:

Recreational Boaters in Florida Bay Crocodile Sanctuary

4. Methods:

N/A

5. Key Findings:

The purpose of this document is to reevaluate the concept of the Florida Bay

crocodile sanctuary. The objective is to incorporate visitor use (recreational

boating) of the area, while minimizing known and possible adverse effects

upon the endangered American crocodile.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 87

1. Author and Title:

Ross, David M. Report on Everglades National Park Visitor Survey. (Draft).

Prepared for Everglades National Park.

2. Date of Study:

October 1985

3. Key Population Studied:

Park Visitors

4. Methods:

Mail-back surveys were used. Surveys were distributed at the Visitor Center.

5. Key Findings:

Primary purpose of this survey was to collect information to determine how

important visibility and related attributes are compared to other attributes

found at the park.

6. Location:

FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems

1. Author and Title:

Snow, Skip. A Review of Personal Watercraft and their Potential Impact on

the Natural Resources of Everglades National Park. Everglades National

Park.

2. Date of Study:

November 1988 (Revised March 1989)

3. Key Population Studied:

Personal Watercraft Users

4. Methods:

Personal observations and communications with government departments

and agencies, and watercraft associations and dealers. A literature search

was also conducted.

5. Key Findings:

The summary opinion of the biologists and resource managers contacted,

with respect to potential impacts on natural resources, is that they consider

the use of personal watercraft as adding insult to injury. That is where

disturbance to wildlife and vegetation was once localized in channels and

some distance from shore, now can spread to areas generally avoided by

conventional motorboats.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
88

1. Author and Title:

Stewart, William P., and Mark I. Ivy. A Sociologic Study of Wintertime

Backcountry Users at Everglades National Park. National Park Service

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Texas A&M University, Technical Report

No. 14.

2. Date of Study:

February 1990

3. Key Population Studied:

Backcountry Users

4. Methods:

On-site surveys and mail-out surveys

5. Key Findings:

Study objectives: 1) identify overnight and day users of park’s backcountry;

2) determine motivations, expectations, and preferences of users; 3)

measure level of satisfaction; 4) evaluate users’ reaction to permit system; 5)

develop a sociological monitoring system; 6) provide database for

backcountry travel simulation models; 7) suggest management actions that

best meet social needs.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

Water Use

1. Author and Title:

Hamann, Richard. Assessment of Water Rights, Uses, Laws and Regulations,

Everglades National Park. Draft Final Report.

2. Date of Study:

1993

3. Key Population Studied:

Everglades National Park Water Rights

4. Methods:

A review and analysis of federal and Florida State water laws and

regulations.

5. Key Findings:

This study was designed to assess the water rights of Everglades National

Park. Section One examines the federal law of water rights, exploring the

extent to which the federal government may have rights under federal law

for delivery of water to the Park. Section Two focuses on state law

governing water rights in Florida, the Water Resources Act of 1972, and the

common law in effect before then. It discusses ways in which the water

rights of the Everglades National Park can be protected under Florida law.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 89

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

Hershman, Karyn L. “Water for the Everglades: The Evolution of Water

Policy in South Florida.” M.A. Thesis, University of Virginia.

2. Date of Study:

May 1994

3. Key Population Studied:

Everglades water supply issues and policies

4. Methods:

Interviews with relevant experts and reviews of primary and secondary

water policy documents were made and descriptions of the impacts of these

policies on the Everglades ecosystem were given.

5. Key Findings:

This study gives a history of Everglades water supply issues and policies. It

points out the often contradictory objectives of these policies. Over the

years, policy regarding water for the Everglades has been one of crisis

management rather than the development of policies to guide water

management.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

Recreation

1. Author and Title:

Everglades National Park. Everglades Bike Trail System Study: Phase I -

Corridor Study - part one - preliminary alternatives.

2. Date of Study:

No date available. [maps used in the study date from January 1989]

3. Key Population Studied:

Bicyclists

4. Methods:

Selection will be based on an analysis of the opportunities and limitations

inherent in the park environments as represented by the following attributes:

existing visitor support and interpretive facilities; existing roads and trails;

potential origin/destination points; natural diversity; sensitive resources;

climatic factors/mosquitoes; and public safety.

5. Key Findings:

The purpose of this study is to identify and evaluate various alternative

routes or combinations of route segments for bicycle use. Phase one was to

conclude with the selection of a proposed bike trail system corridor. [Phase

Two of this project was never conducted.]
90

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

Schemnitz, Sanford D. The Influence of Vehicles on Florida Everglades

Vegetation. Atlanta. (part of larger South Florida Environmental Study.

Schemintz, Sanford D. The Impact of Halftracks and Airboats on the

Florida Everglades Environment. (reprinted from Proceedings of the 1973

Snowmobile and Off-road Vehicle Research Symposium. Technical Report 9.)

2. Date of Study:

1972 and 1973

3. Key Population Studied:

Airboat and halftrack users.

4. Methods:

Airboats and halftracks were run over vegetation segments, and vegetation

was measured and collected. The study included a hunter-vehicle

questionnaire.

5. Key Findings:

Both papers were based on a one year study to determine short-term

influences on vegetation while providing a basis for long-term monitoring.

The study considers beneficial and deleterious impacts on the Everglades

environment.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

U.S. Department of Interior. An Assessment of Recreational Boating and its

Potential Impact on Resources within the Crocodile Sanctuary of

Everglades National Park. Everglades National Park.

2. Date of Study:

1991

3. Key Population Studied:

Recreational boaters in the Florida Bay Crocodile Sanctuary.

4. Methods:

A literature search for relevant studies was conducted, and park staff and

others were consulted for their opinion on the proposed action.

5. Key Findings:

The purpose of this document is to reevaluate the concept of the Florida Bay

crocodile sanctuary. The objective of this reevaluation is to incorporate

visitor use (recreational boating) of the area, while minimizing known and

possible adverse effects upon the endangered American crocodile. The study

determined that providing limited and seasonal recreational access to the

established sanctuary area would not adversely impact the endangered or

threatened species in the area.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 91

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

Environmental Studies

1. Author and Title:

Rogier, Constance M. The Comprehensive Development Master Plan: A

Study of Environmental Politics.

2. Date of Study:

October 1983

3. Key Population Studied:

Citizens Advisory Task Force in South Dade

4. Methods:

Analyses were made of the minutes of Citizens Advisory Task Force

meetings and public hearings to identify the interests and values being

discussed. A stratified random sample of Citizens Advisory Task Force

members, by interest, was chosen and interviewed. Planning Department

staff were interviewed for an overview of the Comprehensive Development

Master Plan. Analyses were made of county department memorandums,

ordinances, letters to County Commissioners, organization newsletters, and

Miami Herald articles and editorials.

5. Key Findings:

The study is an investigation of environmental politics in Dade County,

Florida. Influence efforts of a small group of citizens in a growing urban

community in a fragile tropical everglades setting are reviewed. When the

County Commission made its final decisions on the Comprehensive

Development Master Plan it formulated and legitimated a plan stating

environmental values.

6. Location:

ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts

1. Author and Title:

Harwell, Mark A. (Chair), and John F. Long (Vice-Chair). U.S. Man and the

Biosphere Program Human-Dominated Systems Directorate: Workshop on

Ecological Endpoints and Sustainability Goals.

2. Date of Study:

1992

3. Key Population Studied:

Human impacts on the Everglades

4. Methods:

A workshop was held. GIS approaches were used to organize data.

5. Key Findings:

This report chronicles the results of the second U.S. Man and the Biosphere
92

workshop held in Easton, MD, in July 1993. The purpose of the workshop

was to elaborate the major societal/ecological interactions in humandominated ecological systems. The emphasis is on local and regional rather

than global approaches. Three biosphere reserves were focused on: the

Everglades, the New Jersey Pinelands, and the Virginia Coastal Reserve.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program Human Dominated Systems

Directorate. Isle au Haut Principles: Ecosystem Management and the Case

of South Florida. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service,

U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Date of Study:

1994

3. Key Population Studied:

Everglades restoration issues

4. Methods:

The charette brought together a diverse group of over 40 natural and social

scientists with expertise in South Florida ecosystem management to develop

a new model of human/environment interactions to meet sustainability goals

for the South Florida landscape.

5. Key Findings:

The U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program is conducting a five-year

interdisciplinary study on ecosystem management for sustainability. In June

1994 at Isle au Haut, Maine, a charette was convened to apply these

concepts to South Florida as a case study. The charette concluded that what

is being done now for Everglades restoration will not achieve ecological

sustainability.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park

1. Author and Title:

U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program Human Dominated Systems - GIS

Specialty Group (Robert T. Walker and William D. Solecki). “Encroachment

and Land Use Change in Biosphere Reserve Regions.” (paper presented at

Human Dominated Systems Directorate of the U.S. Man and the Biosphere

Program workshop, January 5-7, 1994, Miami, Florida.)

2. Date of Study:

1994

3. Key Population Studied:

Biosphere Reserves
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 93

4. Methods:

The report discusses the initial stages of an analysis that integrates land use

data, census information, and multiple Biosphere reserves. A methodology

is outlined to address sustainability in its full complexity, involving

ecological, anthropological, institutional, and socioeconomic circumstances

and conditions.

5. Key Findings:

Section I elaborates on the Biosphere concept. Section II discusses

sustainability and an analysis of the rationale for enabling cross-cutting

assessments of Biosphere Reserves. Section III outlines GIS methodology.

Section IV provides a brief conclusion and shows the steps ahead for

implementing the approach across the Biosphere reserve sample.

6. Location:

Everglades National Park
94

Appendix III. Workshop Results

Workshops were conducted to obtain input from the public and

NPS employees about social science research needs in South

Florida. The purpose of this appendix is to present the social

science research questions that were generated at these workshops.

The appendix has two parts. First, the methods used to run the

workshops and develop the research questions are described.

Second, a list of all research questions generated at each workshop

is presented.

Workshop Methods

Six workshops were held in South Florida between 18 – 25

October 1995. Three workshops were conducted for NPS

employees; three workshops were conducted for other agency

representatives, tribes, government officials, and interested

citizens. Invitations and public notices announcing the workshops

were distributed in advance. A total of 54 individuals participated.

A list of participants is available from the NPS. The workshops

were held at the following locations:

• Everglades National Park (13 participants)

• Big Cypress National Preserve (9)

• Biscayne National Park (5)

• Naples Public Library (7)

• South Dade Government Center (13)

• Key Largo Public Library (7)

Each workshop was conducted by a moderator and followed the

same format. First, the purpose and rationale for developing a

social science plan for South Florida’s NPS units was presented.

Second, the social sciences represented in the plan were listed

(economics, geography, political science, psychology and

sociology) with examples of potential research questions.

Third, each participant was asked to respond to the following

question: “What are the most important social science research
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 95

questions facing this park or preserve?” Each participant wrote a

list of important research questions on paper. Fourth, the

participants presented their research questions to the group, one at

a time for each participant. The moderator helped clarify each

question, and they were recorded on flipcharts. Fifth, after all the

questions were presented, the group reviewed each question and

informally identified those that were most important.

The participants in each workshop identified many important social

science research questions. Some questions were mentioned in

more than one workshop. Other questions were raised at only one

workshop. Some questions applied to the entire South Florida

region; others focused collectively on the four park units, a subset

of the four park units, or an individual park or preserve.

The following lists include all questions raised at the workshops. In

some cases, they have been edited for conciseness. Acronyms used

are BICY (Big Cypress National Preserve), BISC (Biscayne

National Park), DRTO (Dry Tortugas National Park), EVER

(Everglades National Park), and NPS (National Park Service).

Big Cypress National Preserve Employee Meeting

Wednesday, 18 October 1995

1. What are the motivations of key preserve users (consumptive)?

2. How can the park gain their trust (consumptive users)?

3. How can we make BICY more accessible to a variety of users?

4. Who are the visitors, where do they come from, and what are their interests?

5. What are the economic impacts of the preserve on local communities and

geographically how far do the impacts extend?

6. What is the relationship between BICY and its community and region

(broadly defined, including ecological)?

7. What is the BICY market?

8. What are the motivations of key preserve users (nonconsumptive)?

9. How is BICY viewed by the majority population of visitors (local and

nonlocal)?

10. How can BICY best educate the public about its resource management
96

programs and issues (e.g., seniors and smoke — prescribed fire, etc.; seniors

and hunters)?

11. What is the historic culture of Southwest Florida (ethnohistory)?

12. How can we get locals to be more acceptable of the NPS presence?

13. How would Native Americans like NPS to interpret their cultures?

14. Do local communities know we (BICY) exist as a NPS unit and what is

their opinion (if they do know)?

15. What are the best communication methods and themes for Southwest

Florida?

16. Why is BICY a destination for certain visitors/users (and why not for

others)?

17. What do backcountry users want re: experience?

18. What are the experiences of backcountry users?

19. What are the conflicts among BICY users and how best can those conflicts

be managed?

20. How can compliance be improved, e.g., ORV users?

21. What social and economic facts need to be known to best manage the

“addition” lands (1996, 140,000 acres)?

22. What do Native Americans (local) value about BICY (natural and cultural

resources) and what is culturally significant to them?

23. What does the local population value about BICY and what is culturally

significant to them?

24. What cultural “common ground” themes might be used to effectively

coordinate the diversity of Native American interests?

25. How can BICY improve its ability to manage interagency cooperative

efforts?

25a. What are the potential conflicts between BICY management practices and

user expectations?

26. Define “usual,” “customary,” and “traditional” related to the preserve’s legal

mandates.

27. What are the implications to BICY of large-scale socio-economic trends

affecting Florida?

28. What is the accurate count and what is an accurate method of counting

visitors?

29. How do users evaluate BICY management?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 97

30. How well are we (BICY) interacting with private property owners in and

adjacent?

31. How will NPS restructuring impact BICY management?

32. What are the challenges of managing a preserve in a system of parks and

how can they best be dealt with (local, cluster, Field Area, Washington

Office)?

Biscayne National Park Employee Meeting

Tuesday, 24 October 1995

1. How many commercial fishermen are using the park — what kind

(broadly), what kind of take (pounds, dollars, species, location and

methods)? Where and how is recreational fishing conducted in the park?

2. What are the social and economic impacts of various park management

decisions and alternatives re: commercial fisheries?

3. What is the impact of the full range of various agencies regulations on

visitors’ experiences and how can coordination and public education be

improved?

4. Why do some visitors to EVER not visit BISC and what could be done to

encourage them to do so?

5. What are the land use trends adjacent to BISC boundaries (3-4 miles)?

6. What is the economic impact (broadly defined) of the 4 NPS units

(individually and collectively) on South Florida?

7. What alternatives are there for having “land-locked” visitors experience the

marine part of BISC?

8. What does the Dade County general population know about Stiltsville and

how do they feel about it and the 1999 deadline? How do inholders (affected

population) feel about the 1999 deadline?

9. What are the social and economic impacts of the proposed removal at

Stiltsville?

10. How do the local population and visitors feel about resource management

changes that might restrict recreational uses, e.g., spear-fishing, lobstering,

jet skis?

11. What is the social and economic impact (costs/benefits) of artificial reefs for

the marine areas surrounding BISC?

12. What are the trends (technological, recreational, demographic, and

regulatory) that may affect recreational boating in the park and how can

they best be dealt with?
98

13. What does the general population of South Florida know and feel about

BISC, and how can public education be improved (including best methods

of communication)?

14. Who are BISC visitors and what do they expect from their park experience?

15. What is the spatial distribution of BISC visitors by use?

16. Where and how is recreational fishing conducted in the park?

17. Why do visitors visit BISC and what activities and services would they

desire?

18. How do BISC visitors evaluate current activities and services?

19. Is there support for a BISC friends’ group, who might be involved, and what

might be its focus?

20. What is the public opinion of visitors to the 4 NPS units and the general

population regarding the importance of environmental preservation versus

development?

21. How do employees feel about the management (people and resources) of

BISC and how can management techniques be improved?

22. What alternative employee management techniques might be employed at

BISC?

23. Does the visiting public care whether NPS or concessioners provide

interpretation on the glass-bottom boat tours?

24. What kind of user group conflicts can BISC anticipate and how best should

they be managed?

Everglades National Park Employee Meeting

Tuesday, 24 October 1995

1. What is the relative amount of use by visitors of the front-country and backcountry of EVER, by season?

2. What would be the social and economic impact of closing the fisheries at

DRTO?

3. How can EVER work more effectively with the South Florida tourism

industry toward a common, positive experience for visitors?

4. How can the NPS proactively cooperate and manage to keep up with sociodemographic trends in the South Florida region, especially in the

Homestead area?

5. What are visitors’ expectations concerning facilities, and how do their

experiences compare with expectations?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 99

6. How are the various government agencies that EVER and other South

Florida NPS units deal with organized, and how can the NPS improve

working relations with them?

7. What is the full range of growth management strategies which might be

most effective in meeting the goals and objectives of South Florida

ecosystem restoration?

8. Among the South Florida population, who does not use (nor is interested in

or aware of) the South Florida NPS sites, and why?

9. What is the spatial and temporal distribution of visitors to the South Florida

NPS sites?

10. What is the South Florida public’s perception and expectation of flood

control in South Florida? And, what is the best way to educate the public

about the conflict between flood control and ecosystem restoration?

11. Are too many people attempting to live in South Florida and rely on local

natural resources?

12. What proportion of visitors to one of the South Florida NPS units visit the

other units?

13. What is the demographic profile of South Florida’s population, particularly

new residents? What are their opinions and attitudes concerning federal land

management in South Florida?

14. How aware is the population of South Florida of the South Florida NPS

units, and their role in the South Florida ecosystem and tourism industry?

15. What are the potential impacts of marine sanctuary regulations on the South

Florida NPS units adjacent to the sanctuary?

16. What cultural (social) activities might be acceptable to local park

neighbors? What kind of cultural activities would be attractive to visitors?

17. How can EVER improve its local public image?

18. What is the carrying capacity (physical, social, infrastructure) of EVER?

19. What are the visitor projections for all South Florida NPS units, both short

and long term?

20. What is the relationship between visitor experiences and visitor attitudes

toward ecosystem restoration in South Florida?

21. What role do South Florida NPS units play in South Floridians’ perception

of quality of life?

22. What role do South Florida NPS units play in South Floridians’ quality of

life?
100

23. What is the demographic profile of visitors to the South Florida parks?

24. What is the social and economic value of 1 acre of Everglades wetlands?

25. How do foreign visitors learn about South Florida parks?

26. Who are the long-term local (South Florida) supporters of EVER, how can

we improve their involvement?

27. What are the social and economic impacts, and administratively what will

be demanded of DRTO replacing the permit system with a concession?

28. What impact has the EVER environmental program had on participants

(long-term)?

29. Do visitors learn anything about the “specialness” of EVER?

30. What are the impacts of deteriorating (loss of) natural resources

(particularly in the parks) upon the South Florida tourism industry and

national park visitation?

31. How can EVER staff improve communications within and between

divisions? How can all South Florida NPS park staffs communicate more

effectively?

32. What potential long-term impacts would radical change in Cuba have on the

South Florida ecosystem?

33. Where do visitors go after visiting EVER?

34. Are the South Florida NPS units providing visitors with sufficient cultural

resource activities?

35. What are the direct and indirect subsidies underlying development in South

Florida? What influence do the subsidies have on ecosystem restoration?

36. Would public outreach programs specific to EVER be effective?

37. Do visitors need more information before arriving at any of the South

Florida NPS units?

38. What role could the NPS play in providing local, traditional recreation

activities?

39. What impacts do current land and natural resource use trends have on South

Florida ecosystem restoration?

40. How do local political processes impact ecosystem restoration (local, state,

national)?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 101

Key Largo Public Meeting

Wednesday, 25 October 1995

1. What is the relationship between EVER and the concessioners?

2. Why do many local (South Florida) people not visit EVER?

3. Do existing national park and preserve boundaries represent effective

boundaries for human use compatible with long-term sustainability of the

park units? Are the parks’ boundaries effective for long term sustainability

of the parks’?

4. What do people (visitors, residents, NGOs, non-visitors, and stakeholders)

expect from the 4 NPS units?

5. What could be done to influence elected officials (local and national) to give

higher priority to financing all 4 NPS units (individually and collectively)?

6. What are/were the traditional recreational uses of pre-acquisition (prior to

NPS, recent history) lands in the Everglades expansion area (East

Everglades)?

7. Do Keys’ visitors and residents desire concession facilities and/or visitor

center facilities at the Key Largo ranger station?

8. What are the costs and benefits (advantages and disadvantages) of

privatization of services in all 4 of the NPS units (individually and

collectively)?

9. What makes a “good” park experience for the 4 units (individually) by

specific visitor types?

10. How can environmental education be accelerated to have an

environmentally literate society (national) in relation to the 4 NPS units?

11. What recreational uses of EVER can be introduced or expanded to enhance

the local economy (South Florida) and visitor enjoyment?

12. How can EVER better manage and educate about jet ski use (e.g., signs)?

13. How much would people (visitors, residents, NGOs, non-visitors, and

stakeholders) pay (e.g., taxes and subsidies) to support the 4 NPS units

individually and collectively?

14. What functions would people (visitors, residents, NGOs, non-visitors, and

stakeholders) want these 4 NPS units to perform and what are their relative

priorities (individually and collectively)?

15. What do the 4 park superintendents see as the needs to be met for the 4 park

units (individually)?
102

16. What is the post-1900 cultural and recreational history of the Big Cypress

region (and the regions surrounding the other 3 units)?

17. What are the visitor uses and economic benefits (to whom?) of enhancing

the local culture related to the Big Cypress region (and the regions

surrounding the other 3 units)?

18. What is the cultural significance and history of the Caloosa Indians (and

other ancient tribes) in relation to the 4 NPS units?

19. What measures might be taken to educate students around the country about

the 4 NPS units?

20. What are and what can be the direct and indirect economic impacts (e.g.,

income generation) of the 4 NPS units (individually and collectively)?

21. What are the formal and informal relationships between the 4 NPS units and

other natural resource agencies and Florida universities?

22. What role do friends’ groups play in providing assistance to the NPS units

in meeting NPS objectives (negative and positive)?

23. What is the social and economic benefit of restoring and maintaining the

ecological health of the Big Cypress/Everglades/Florida Bay ecosystem?

24. What are the social and economic impacts of special recognized rights for

Native Americans in the 4 NPS units?

25. What do we already know about public understanding (broad) of the

significance of NPS resources (4 units and nationally)?

26. Who are the visitors to DRTO and what do they want?

27. How can national park user fees be returned to the park that generates them?

28. Why is EVER policy re: commercial boat landings inconsistent?

29. What mechanisms could be put into place so that scientists, managers,

concessioners and others are involved in research agendas?

Naples Public Meeting

Thursday, 19 October 1995

1. What kinds of uses are EVER and the other 3 NPS units receiving (broadly

defined, by season, by day/night, etc.)?

2. What are the local economic impacts (cost/benefit) of federal land

acquisition in South Florida (include county level analysis)?

3. How can directions and access to the 4 NPS units for visitors and locals be

improved?

4. How will cultural diversity in South Florida impact (broadly defined) the 3

parks and 1 preserve (short-term and long-term)?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 103

5. How can the 4 NPS units better coordinate their management to deal with

their mutual problems—biological, physical, social?

6. How can the different restoration values of cultural groups in South Florida

be identified and described for the 4 NPS units?

7. What are visitor (full-range) expectations and are they being met (4 units)?

8. What are the land-use trends surrounding the 4 park units at the watershed/

sub-basin level?

9. Is it feasible to integrate the regional GIS information?

10. What is the best way and place to provide visitor information for Southwest

Florida public lands?

11. What is the potential for ecosystem management of the 4 units to improve/

impact quality of life in South Florida?

12. What are the administrative conflicts between NPS units in South Florida

and how can they be minimized?

13. How can water allocation decisions be improved to include a full range of

values (short/long term)?

14. How do local communities view the park units and their management?

15. How can the relationship between NPS units and local communities be

improved?

16. What are the local/regional impacts (full range) of visitors to 4 NPS units?

How far do impacts extend?

17. How can public education about Native American tribes in South Florida be

improved?

18. How can public participation in NPS decision-making be improved (other

related decisions as well)?

19. How can the NPS improve its relationship with visitors to improve visitors’

sense of ownership?

20. How can the NPS and each individual unit in South Florida create a larger,

more supportive constituency in South Florida?

21. What are the socio-economic impacts (long and short term) of mineral

rights and activities in BICY and EVER?

22. How can we inventory the value of interagency and other partnerships?

What other kinds of information do we need to improve these partnerships?

23. What is the feasibility, practicality and value of a science advisory

committee for the 4 NPS units?
104

24. How can the social and economic values of public lands be estimated and

what would they be for South Florida?

South Dade Government Center Public Meeting

Monday, 23 October 1995

1. What data do the parks need most, i.e. descriptive, explanation, prediction?

2. Do we have (need) a comprehensive inventory/plan of sacred sites (tribes)?

3. Is the relationship among the 4 South Florida parks and the local tribes

working?

4. How do the parks influence land use decisions in adjacent jurisdictions?

How can it be improved?

5. What are the socio-economic factors that affect accessibility to natural

areas, e.g., Dry Tortugas?

6. What are the socio-economic impacts of tourism to the parks on the

surrounding areas and region?

7. How can the parks be used to create an identification with Florida among

new residents?

8. What are the implications of the nature of population growth (may not know

parks exist) — personal survival, outreach?

9. Benefit/cost analysis for all or any of the parks given advances in the

science (should be done)?

10. What efforts are being made re: documentation and preservation (possibly

interpretation) of numerous archeological sites within park boundaries?

11. What role should ecosystem management plan in the parks’ management,

i.e., are the parks sustainable? (Are the park ecosystems viable given the

socioeconomics?) (Interfacing of mission statements with adjacent local

parks?) (Are parks sustainable in a social sense?)

12. Who are the visitors/users? How would restoration efforts impact visitation?

13. How can the parks better integrate the community into restoration —

outreach, education?

14. What representation do the parks have in local, state and federal government

and how can they be better represented?

15. What are the impacts of visitors on parks resources?

16. Who are the allies/antagonists of the parks, now and in the future?

17. Does the Park Service need an efficiencies analysis (service provision) and

how can coordination between state and national parks enhance efficiency?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 105

18. How will the elimination of free entrance to the parks for senior citizens

impact the usage by senior citizens as well as park revenue?

19. What is the interaction of parks with communities outside the park

boundaries — how can we make this more effective?

20. What is the feasibility of creating a mechanism for individuals to donate

money to each of the South Florida parks (tax checkoff (1040))?

21. How can the parks work collectively to advertise themselves as a network of

parks?

22. Feasibility of creating bikeway to connect the mainland parks?

23. How should the South Florida parks be funded? Potential for privatization?

24. Is there a possibility that the number of visitors will be limited? Should they

be? How? (carrying capacity for visitors)

25. How do the needs of the user groups vary between state, national, and local

parks? Is there a question of duplication of services? Do we know what

visitors want/need? Are we providing what visitors need?

26. How can coordination between parks and other agencies and local

communities be improved?

27. How can the parks work with the business community to preserve the parks

and ensure more compatible development?

28. What are the chronic site specific behavioral issues at each park, i.e.,

feeding wildlife, litterbug, visitor associated challenges?

29. How can communication and coordination be improved between

departments within each park?

30. Is there a mission statement and associated implementation plan for each

park (measurable behavior)?

31. Do the parks collectively contain sustainable (segments) of all ranges of

pre-1900 South Florida — unique flora and fauna, geography. If not, how

can you achieve it?

32. What trends in visitor service demands are being anticipated or prepared

for?

33. How can we better serve the visitor given the changing and aging of South

Florida?

34. How can the parks become more proactive (planners in the sense of park

planners) given the changing demographics — international to local?

35. How satisfied are park visitors?

36. How will visitor needs be prioritized given budgetary allocation?
106

Appendix IV. A Cooperative Park Studies Unit for

Social Science

The purpose of this appendix is to describe the general

organization and management of a Cooperative Park Studies Unit

(CPSU) for social science. It is adapted from the NPS national

social science plan, Usable Knowledge: A Plan for Furthering

Social Science and the National Parks (1996). First, the overall

organization, and then the key elements of a CPSU are described.

The model can be used to guide development of the proposed

South Florida CPSU.

Introduction

A central mechanism for conducting NPS science and delivering

scientific expertise to NPS managers has been Cooperative Park

Studies Units (CPSUs). CPSUs operate under cooperative

agreements between the National Park Service (and since 1994, the

National Biological Service) and universities. Traditionally, the

units have been:

• focused on conducting biological and social science research,

• housed within one university,

• administered by an NPS employee or faculty member,

• serving a specific NPS region, and

• supervised by regional administrators.

CPSUs have been a cost-effective mechanism for delivery of NPS

science. With the restructuring of the NPS and the creation of the

National Biological Service (NBS), a refined CPSU model is

necessary. This model could be used in establishing a South

Florida CPSU for social science. This appendix describes the

organization of such a CPSU, in general terms.

37. What are the park science staffs’ perception of social science needs?

38. How can NPS incorporate these social science issues into parks’ general

management plans?
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 107

The Organization of a CPSU

The objectives of establishing a CPSU are to:

• provide NPS managers with state-of-the art science and scholarship,

• ensure that research is applied to park management needs, independently

conducted and subject to peer review,

• encourage professional development of NPS employees,

• take full advantage of university resources for NPS benefit,

• be flexible and adaptive to differences in field area needs, and

• reduce administrative costs.

Hence, the CPSU concept should be updated to reflect the “new”

NPS. While the formal relationship between the NPS and NBS is

currently uncertain regarding CPSUs, several objectives can be

identified. CPSUs should:

• be capable of delivering science and scholarship in all fields of inquiry

needed by NPS managers,

• offer professional development opportunities for NPS employees (including

workshops, continuing education, specialized training, sabbaticals and

graduate degree programs),

• allow for efficient and timely contracting, conduct and delivery of scientific

research,

• provide the NPS access to valuable university resources, from laboratories

to libraries,

• provide NPS managers with consulting, extension and technical assistance,

• have the flexibility to evolve and adapt to meet park, park cluster, field area

and national needs, and

• operate efficiently and cooperatively, with minimal overhead and few full

time equivalent positions (FTEs).

In this model, CPSUs are “virtual” in that they are not located in a

single institution, but exist as a set of agreements, contracts,

excepted appointments and other arrangements linking several

institutions in order to better serve the NPS. A CPSU will have:

• a host university that serves as the contact point for the NPS,

• partner universities and other institutions that offer technical and

professional services to the NPS,

• a role and mission statement that declares specific areas of social science

research and service that the CPSU is especially qualified to pursue,
108

• a 4-year plan with specific performance goals, and

• a managers committee composed of NPS employees (such as field area staff

and park superintendents).

Each element is described below.

Key Elements of a CPSU

1. The Host University

The host university will provide space and basic administrative

support as part of its cooperative agreement (as is done now), and

may house an NPS or NBS social scientist duty-stationed at the

CPSU. The host university would:

• serve as the liaison with the field area, park cluster and Washington Office

(WASO) Social Science Program,

• be responsible for administering the CPSU,

• develop CPSU plans and performance goals,

• coordinate the work of CPSU partners, and

• conduct research for the NPS.

2. Partner Institutions

Partner institutions can include other universities, community

colleges and other research organizations. An NPS employee might

be duty-stationed, even temporarily, at a partner institution. Partner

institutions will be linked to the CPSU through formal agreements.

The partner institutions will:

• provide specialized services needed by the NPS,

• conduct research in their areas of specialization needed by the NPS, and

• participate in developing CPSU plans and performance goals.

3. CPSU Managers Committee

Working with field area directors and park clusters, the CPSU will

organize a managers committee, composed of NPS superintendents

and other NPS staff. Members will be selected by the field area

director responsible for the host university agreement. The specific

relationship between the managers committee and the CPSU may

vary from region to region.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 109

The general purpose of the committee is to:

• provide advice and guidance to the CPSU in meeting NPS managers’ needs,

• provide input on research agendas,

• serve as liaison with the park clusters, field areas and system support

offices, and

• assist in evaluating CPSU performance.

Committees would meet and serve at the discretion of the field area

director.

4. Role and Mission Statements

A CPSU will prepare a role and mission statement that explicitly

identifies those social science research, technical assistance,

extension, education and other services that it is especially

qualified to pursue. The CPSU should be able to demonstrate its

capability to provide state-of-the-art science related to research

areas included in its role and mission statement. The role and

mission statement will clearly identify services to be provided to

system support offices and parks.

It will be used to:

• aid managers in contracting state-of-the-art science,

• guide research and service activities of the CPSU,

• ensure that the NPS has access to state-of-the-art science,

• avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, and

• provide accountability and evaluate performance of the CPSU.

CPSU partner institutions, representatives of the universities, field

area directors and CPSU managers committees will participate in

developing the role and mission statements.

5. 4-Year Plans and Performance Goals

A CPSU will prepare a 4-year plan for its social science research

and service activities. The plan will describe the CPSU’s ongoing

and anticipated projects, as well as its planned improvements in

delivering science and service to NPS managers. The plans will

include general performance goals and provide for flexibility and
110

new opportunities that may emerge. The CPSU plans will be used

to:

• guide the delivery of useful research to managers,

• justify CPSU and project budgets,

• coordinate the CPSUs to form an efficient network,

• support park planning efforts,

• coordinate research activities with the NBS, and

• evaluate CPSU performance.

CPSU partner institutions, representatives of the universities, field

area director and the CPSU managers committee will participate in

developing the plan. Program evaluations would be conducted

every three years in cooperation with field offices, managers

committees, the WASO Social Science Program Office and CPSU

participants.
A Social Science Plan for South Florida National Park Service Units 111

Appendix V. South Florida Universities and

Colleges with Social Science Programs

This appendix presents a list of universities and colleges in South

Florida with programs in one or more of the social science

disciplines included in this plan. Colleges and universities with

enrollments greater than 3,000 and that have either undergraduate

or graduate level programs, or both are listed.

Barry University

Florida Atlantic University

Florida Gulf Coast University

(will open August 1997, Arts and Sciences, Environmental Science included

in planned program areas)

Florida International University

Nova Southeastern University

University of Central Florida

University of Miami

University of South Florida

(Ft. Myers campus to be transferred to Florida Gulf Coast University in

1997)
112

Appendix VI. Selected Literature

Books

Craighead, Frank C., Sr. 1971. The Trees of South Florida. University of Miami

Press, Coral Gables, FL. Volume 1.

Light, Stephen S., Lance H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling. 1995. The Everglades: Evolution of Management in a Turbulent Ecosystem. Pp. 103-168 in

Stephen S. Light, Lance H. Gunderson, and C.S. Holling, eds., Barriers &

Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

Lodge, Thomas E. 1994. The Everglades Handbook: Understanding the Ecosystem. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Tebeau, Charlton W. 1968. Man in the Everglades: 2000 Years of Human History

in the Everglades National Park, second revised edition. University of

Miami Press, Coral Gables, FL.

Reports

Boswell, Thomas D., ed. 1991. “South Florida: The Winds of Change.” Prepared for the Annual Conference of the Association of American Geographers, Miami, FL.

Correia, Michele Edwards, principal investigator. 1995. “Economic Impact

Study of Federal Interest Lands in South Florida.” Prepared by FAU/FIU

Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems (Draft Report).

Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management

Program. October 1995. “Initial Report of the Governor’s Commission for a

Sustainable South Florida” provided by the Dept. of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL.

Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. 1995. “The Ecosystem

Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Volume 1 –

Overview.”

Interagency Working Group. 1994. “1994 Annual Report: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group.”

Interagency Working Group. 1995. “1995 Annual Report: South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group.”

Machlis, Gary E. 1996. “Usable Knowledge: A Plan for Furthering Social

Science and the National Parks.” National Park Service, Washington, DC.

“South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: FY 1996 Budget Cross-Cut Summary of

Federal Projects Summary of State of Florida Projects.” May 15, 1995.

Prepared by the Federal South Florida Ecosystem Task Force.

U.S. Water Resources Council. March 10, 1983. “Economic and Environmental

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.”